Amendment Text:
H.Amdt.803 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:Amendment as Offered (10/05/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H6587 in the following article from the Congressional Record.

[Pages H6573-H6617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CEMENT SECTOR REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2681.
{time} 1300
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2681) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for
cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Womack in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
There has been a lot of discussion in the 1-minutes this morning
about the importance of passing the Obama jobs bill. I would like to
remind everyone today that the bailouts, the stimulus packages, all
have exceeded $2 trillion in the spending of taxpayer money. And
despite the expenditure of all of that money, the unemployment rate in
America is still well over 9 percent, even though it was suggested that
with the spending of the stimulus money, unemployment would be brought
down to less than 8 percent.
I would also remind everyone that within the last 3 days, the
Department of Energy shoved out the door approximately $5 billion in
loan guarantees for so-called green energy projects without, in my
view, the necessary time to clearly evaluate the loans that were being
made. And we have proof of this because, in the Solyndra case, the
taxpayers are going to have to expend $538 million because that company
went bankrupt. Now in the Obama jobs bill, they're asking for another
approximately $500 billion to be spent to create jobs.
Well, the reason that we're here today is that if you talk to any
businesspeople today, large or small, they will tell you that the
reason jobs are not being created in America is because of uncertainty,
the uncertainty about health care regulations, not knowing what they're
going to be. Already, 8,700 pages of new regulations have been written.
The uncertainty created by the new financial regulations that
increase the capital requirements for loans to be made changes the
appraisal process. That has created great uncertainty; but, most
important, the uncertainty created by this aggressive Environmental
Protection Agency. This administrator has been the most aggressive in
issuing new regulations in the history of the EPA.
We all are committed to clean air that allows for healthful living in
America, but we also want to use common sense, particularly at this
time when our economy is struggling. And so when you issue new
regulations that create additional obstacles for job creation, that is
a major problem.
I noticed today, for example, in The Hill magazine: ``Senate
Democrats Buck Obama on Jobs Plan.''
{time} 1310
So they have the same concerns that we do.
So, today, we're bringing to the floor H.R. 2681, referred to as the
Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, which basically says to EPA about
their recently issued cement regulatory items, we want you to go back
and revisit this bill because evidence shows that 20,000 jobs are at
jeopardy and 18 percent of cement plants in America may very well be
closed because of this regulation. So we're simply asking EPA in this
legislation to go back, revisit this rule, issue a final rule within 15
[[Page H6574]]
months after the passage of this legislation and give the affected
industry up to 5 years to comply with the new regulations. Because in
doing so, we're going to reduce the loss of jobs, which is critical at
this time of our Nation's history.
Now, I would also like to say that this legislation introduced by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) has bipartisan support. If you
look at the sponsors and cosponsors, you will see a lot of Democratic
cosponsors of his legislation. I would also say to you that there are
over 29 national associations and construction groups that support this
legislation led by the American Road & Transportation Builders
Association; the Associated General Contractors of America; the
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; the International Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Laborers'
International Union of North America; and the International Union of
Operating Engineers. So you have businesses and labor unions all
supporting this commonsense legislation simply directing EPA to do a
more careful analysis before they fully implement this hard-hitting
regulation that would close 18 percent of the cement plants in America.
We believe that this can be done and still clearly protect the health
of the American people as well as the clean air that we now have in
this great country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to at this point yield 5 minutes to
the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member of the full committee, and I
commend him on his outstanding work not only on this particular matter
but in most of the issues that come before this Congress as it relates
to not only the purpose of us but the prosperity of the American
people.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong, strong opposition to this bill,
H.R. 2681. I call it the Dirty Cement Pollution Bill. Let's be
perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. This bill, this measure is not about
jobs. For the chairman of the subcommittee, and my friend, just to try
to persuade Members of this body that this is about jobs, I think that
it's the worst kind of politics. Jobs now is the useful canard, but
this is not about jobs. This is about an industry that is singular in
its being eliminated or being not under the auspices of the Clean Air
Act, and about an industry that is unique because it doesn't have to
adhere to any of the provisions of the Clean Air Act. And it's about
time that this industry be included with other industries in this
Nation to come under the auspices, the jurisdiction, and the standards
of the Clean Air Act.
Cement kilns emit nearly 8 tons of mercury each year, making them the
Nation's second-largest mercury emitting source. Before the EPA issued
its 2010 air toxics rule, these emissions remained essentially
unrestrained due to the lack of controls for cement kilns regulating
the release of mercury into the atmosphere.
H.R. 2681 would roll back existing Clean Air Act standards by
revoking three Clean Air Act rules, including the only national limits
on emissions of air toxics, such as mercury, from cement kilns. This
Dirty Cement Pollution Bill will also require EPA to propose and
finalize weaker replacement rules that will allow for more pollution
than the law currently permits.
This bill is intended to significantly change how EPA sets the
standards when issuing the alternative rules. H.R. 2681 would
indefinitely delay the reductions of air toxics and other hazardous
pollutants by prohibiting EPA from finalizing replacement rules prior
to March 2013 if this bill were to be enacted at the end of this year.
Also, this bill does not include any statutory deadline for when
polluters must reduce emissions, leaving the process ambiguous and
open-ended. At the very least, this Dirty Cement Pollution Bill would
postpone emission reductions from cement kilns until at least 2018--a
4\1/2\-year delay. In fact, the health safeguards from these standards
are long, long, long, long overdue. EPA just finalized standards for
cement plants in September of last year, making them 13 years overdue
under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990--13 years overdue already.
They are overdue 13 years.
The science tells us that these dirty air toxics can cause a variety
of serious health effects, including cancer and respiratory
neurological impairments, as well as reproductive problems.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. RUSH. In particular, mercury exposure can cause great harm to
pregnant women, unborn babies, and young children by damaging their
developing nervous systems, which affects children's ability to learn
and to think.
Additionally, mercury emissions can also damage the environment by
polluting our Nation's lakes and streams and the seafood which we eat.
In fact, EPA estimates that H.R. 2681 will allow for thousands of
additional premature deaths and premature heart attacks, as well as
tens of thousands of additional asthma attacks that could have been
avoided.
Mr. Chairman, the public health benefits from the reduction of air
toxics emissions from cement kilns have already been delayed long
enough. Now is the time. The radical Republican majority cannot keep
making excuses and exceptions for the largest industrial emitters of
mercury in the U.S., cement plants and industrial boilers, while over
100 other industries have already controlled their air toxic pollution.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I know that we're going to be hearing a lot about
mercury today. I would like to point out that it's been indicated that
98 percent of the mercury present in America today, air, land, and so
forth, comes from natural causes and from sources outside of the United
States. And the EPA, in its analysis of the cement regulation that they
just issued, did not assign any dollar value that would come from the
reduction of mercury emissions.
{time} 1320
So I think that this is a red herring that our friends are bringing
up on the other side.
At this point in time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), the author of this legislation.
Mr. SULLIVAN. As we go around our districts, as I go around my
district in Oklahoma, many people come up to me and say, John, what are
you politicians in Washington going to do to help this economy? What
are you going to do to create jobs here in America? Well, you know, we
politicians don't create jobs, but what we do do is we get in the way.
And one of the things we can do to keep jobs in place and even foster
new jobs is getting the heck out of the way with these burdensome over-
regulations that are out there.
The EPA has gone rogue, wanting to shut down 20 percent of our cement
plants. And President Obama, when he came to the joint session here
recently, said he wanted to build roads and bridges and infrastructure.
Well, I guess he wants to do that with imported Chinese cement, not
American-made cement.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector
Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. As House Republicans move forward with a
bold agenda to grow our economy and put Americans back to work, one
area that must be addressed is the issue of over-regulation by the
Federal Government.
With our economy suffering, and given that 14 million Americans are
out of work, Congress must implement Federal policies that grow jobs,
increase domestic manufacturing, and restore the global economic
competitiveness of the United States.
Businesses make decisions on where to invest based upon a number of
factors, but regulatory certainty ranks among the top factors, which is
why H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, is so
important.
I introduced this bipartisan legislation with my good friend and
colleague from Arkansas, Mike Ross, to protect American jobs, jobs that
we are in danger of losing due to the Obama administration's radical
environmental regulatory agenda.
[[Page H6575]]
The purpose of this legislation is to provide EPA additional time to
repropose and finalize its rules setting Maximum Achievable Control
Technology and other standards for cement manufacturing plants so that
the rules are both achievable and protect American jobs.
Specifically, the EPA would be required to repropose the Cement MACT
rules 15 months after enactment of this legislation. The bill will also
extend the dates for compliance with the rules from 3 to 5 years to
give our domestic cement manufacturing industry the time to comply with
its rules.
If EPA's Cement MACT rule is not revised, thousands of jobs will be
lost due to cement plant closures and high construction costs. This
rule alone threatens to shut down up to 20 percent of the Nation's
cement manufacturing plants in the next 2 years, sending thousands of
jobs permanently overseas and driving up cement and construction costs
across the country.
Additionally, the Portland Cement Association estimates it will cost
$3.4 billion--half of the industry's annual revenues--to comply with
the EPA's Cement MACT rule. Does that make any sense?
The EPA's Cement rule also greatly impacts our Nation's construction
industry, where unemployment rates have hovered between 16 and 20
percent nationally. Without my legislation, construction job losses
would be further exacerbated with reduced supplies of cement being
produced in the United States.
The simple fact is cement is the backbone for the construction of our
Nation's buildings, roads, bridges, and crucial water and wastewater
treatment infrastructure. Without further investment in cement capacity
expansion, the United States will become increasingly dependent on
foreign imports.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional
minute.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Additionally, lost supplies of cement resulting from
closure of cement plants would also drive up the cost of infrastructure
projects and potentially limit the number of projects that may be
undertaken.
Now, some of the opponents of this commonsense, bipartisan
legislation, including President Obama, say this legislation weakens
the Clean Air Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. H.R. 2681
does not change or modify any existing public health protections. It
simply directs the EPA to establish regulations achievable in practice
by real-world cement plants. At a time of great economic uncertainty,
this is something worth doing for the health of our economy.
I do not know if the President is watching, but right now jobs are
not being created and our economy is not growing. The cement sector is
struggling in the current economic climate and in the face of foreign
competition from abroad.
President Obama likes to talk about the need to invest in our
Nation's infrastructure, and this legislation will remove one of the
several barriers to growth in the construction and manufacturing
industries. I am amazed he is opposed to this bipartisan measure, and I
encourage my colleagues to support this.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to put this bill in the perspective of what the House has been
doing on the environment. The House has voted 136 times this Congress
to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce
air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands in
coastal areas, and to weaken the protections of the environment in
other ways as well. This is the most anti-environment Congress in
history.
Last month, the House passed radical legislation to turn back 40
years of progress towards clean air. That bill will nullify pollution
control requirements on power plants--the largest source of toxic
mercury pollution in the country--and weaken our national clean air
goals by basing them on corporate profits, not on public health.
Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and
the environment. The bills we will consider this week are the next
phase of the Republican concerted attack on our environment. The bills
would gut the Clean Air Act provisions that protect American families
from toxic air pollutants. If these bills are enacted, there will be
more cases of cancer, birth defects, and brain damage. The ability of
our children to think and learn will be impaired because of their
exposure to mercury and other dangerous air pollutants.
In 1990, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, voted to protect the
public from these toxic pollutants. The law directed EPA to set
standards requiring the use of a Maximum Achievable Control Technology
to control emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic
emissions. This approach has worked well. Industrial emissions of
carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7
million tons each year.
EPA has reduced pollution from dozens of industrial sectors. More
than 100 categories of sources have been required to cut their
pollution, and this has delivered major public health benefits to this
Nation. But a large source of categories still have not been required
to control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation.
The bill we consider today would nullify and indefinitely delay EPA's
efforts to reduce toxic emissions from cement plants. Now, the chairman
of the subcommittee said this is a commonsense bill. It's only for a
short delay. He said that cement plants would have up to 5 years to
comply with pollution control requirements. And you might think, well,
a little bit more time is not going to do that much harm. But that is
not a correct statement of what this bill would do.
The bill says that EPA cannot require any pollution reduction from
any cement plant for at least 5 years. So it's 5 years before they can
do anything at EPA. And then there's no deadline thereafter where the
facilities ever have to comply. That, to me, is not a simple,
commonsense approach to a very dangerous pollution.
Later this week, we are going to have consideration of a bill to
indefinitely delay pollution controls on industrial boilers and waste
incinerators. Both of these bills would rewrite the standard provisions
of the Clean Air Act to weaken the levels of protection and set up new
hurdles for EPA rules. We're told that we need to pass these bills
because the threat of EPA regulation is dragging down our economy. The
reality is that requiring installation of pollution controls will
create jobs.
{time} 1330
We're going to need more factory workers. We're going to need to
build the pollution controls. We're going to need construction workers
to install them on-site, cement plant employees to operate them. We
hear this all the time, these statements that pollution controls will
cost us jobs.
But these arguments have been thoroughly debunked by independent
experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined one
and concluded ``little credence can be placed in these estimate of job
losses.'' The State and local air pollution agencies concluded that one
study's assumptions are grossly in error. It's my hope that this body
will not be so easily misled.
It was lack of regulation at Wall Street--on the banks and the
brokers and the other people who spent their time figuring out very
crafty investments for which nothing backed them up--that caused this
recession, not because we had environmental regulations that protect
children from toxic mercury emissions.
I oppose these bills on substance, and I also have concerns about the
process. But let me go into concern about the process.
We were told this is a small issue. It depends on how you look at it.
These bills are bad enough to oppose simply on the basis of what they
would do. But it shows how the Republican majority in this House wants
to adopt rules and regulations on themselves but then not abide by
them. The House didn't change the rules, but the majority leader said
we have a protocol that, whenever we have a discretionary CutGo rule in
the legislative protocols for the 112th Congress, we must have funding
authorized to make up for the extra requirement that's going to be
required of any government agencies.
[[Page H6576]]
And this requires a specific amount to be offset by a reduction in an
existing authorization. The majority leader announced that compliance
with these protocols would be necessary before legislation could be
scheduled for floor consideration.
We had a similar situation where Chairman Upton said that our
committee would follow this discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a
letter, which I'll make part of the record, in June to clarify this
discretionary CutGo policy will apply to pending bills before our
committee. ``If CBO determines,'' he said, ``that any of these bills
will have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we'll offset the
newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.''
Well, CBO has determined that both of these bills that are on the
floor this week will, in fact, authorize new discretionary spending. I
read one of the quotes from a Republican staff person. We don't need to
worry about it because it doesn't really authorize new spending.
CBO says it does. They determine these bills will have a significant
impact on the Federal budget because of the bill's requirement the EPA
spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. They said
it's only going to cost $2 million over a 5-year period. That's not a
lot of money, but it is money, and that's why the Republicans had this
protocol. They said we didn't want any money being spent without it
being offset.
Now, this is not a rule. We don't have to waive this rule. But what
we have is not a waiver of this rule. We have the Republicans ignoring
their own protocol and their own policies.
The American people need to focus on the radical agenda of the
Republicans that are controlling this House of Representatives. I don't
think when the Republicans were voted into office the American people
voted for poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of our
seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled pollution.
I oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the distinguished ranking member that
we do not authorize any additional funding in this bill and that EPA
does have a $2 billion budget that allows them to deal with regulatory
issues.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the
chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
I listened with interest to Mr. Waxman's remarks. Sometimes, when
there's not a lot you can say substantively against an issue, you just
put a lot of stuff out there and hope something sticks; and I would
have to characterize most of his remarks as hoping that some of what he
said sticks.
The bill that he just spoke against is only 8 pages long. It's just 8
pages. And here's the gist of the bill. It asks the EPA, or directs the
EPA, to go back and spend 12 to 15 months to take a look at the rule
that it was about to propose, in other words, to go back and reanalyze
it. I don't think that's gutting the Clean Air Act.
Then it extends the compliance deadline for an additional 3 to 5
years. Now, that's substantive. That could result in some additional
time, which I think is a good thing. But that, in and of itself,
shouldn't be a showstopper.
And then it asks that the EPA, when they adopt these new rules, to
make sure that it's still allowable for cement manufacturing to use
alternative fuels. Well, last time I looked, the Democratic Party was
big on alternative fuels and supporting loan guarantees to develop
those fuels, so that shouldn't be a showstopper.
Then, finally, it says, whatever rule that you eventually adopt, you
have to be able to implement it in the real world. Now, that is an
amazing thing, that we want a regulation to be promulgated that you can
actually achieve with real-world technology. In Texas, that's called
common sense. I'm not sure what it's called up here.
That's the bill. That's the bill. It's an 8-page bill.
Now, Mr. Waxman also said that we've had 100 votes trying to do
terrible things to the environment in this Congress. We've not had one
vote, ladies and gentlemen, that changed an existing statute that's
already in place, an existing standard. All these votes that my good
friend from California talks about are a time-out and saying, wait a
minute, before we make them even tighter, let's make sure they make
sense.
We've got an economy that's reeling. We've got unemployment at 10
percent. The compliance cost of this plethora of EPA regulations is in
the billions of dollars annually. Billions. Billions. This particular
Cement MACT rule, if implemented, would shutter somewhere between 15 to
20 percent of cement production in the United States. That's not
trivial, folks. That's real.
So what those of us that support the bill are saying is: Let's take a
second look at it. Let's make sure that the rules have time to be
implemented. Let's let alternative fuels be used, and let's let
whatever regulation is ultimately implemented actually be achievable in
the real world.
I think that's worthy of support, and I would ask my friends on both
sides of the aisle to support this when it comes up for a vote, I would
assume sometime tomorrow probably. We've got 20-something amendments,
so we're going to be here debating it.
But this is a good piece of legislation. It's common sense. It would
help our economy, and we would still get additional regulation that
makes sense for cement kilns.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me the bill, and it
says, whatever regulations the EPA is proposing--and it's taken them a
decade to finally come up with these regulations--it'll be null and
void. It will have no force of action. It will be treated as though
such rule had never taken effect. And then it's going to be replaced.
Now, how is it going to be replaced? Well, it says we're not going to
let them replace this rule for 5 years. Well, during this period of
time, people are still being exposed to these toxic pollutants. So it
says, not earlier--they'll establish compliance and they'll establish
new regulations, but nobody has to do anything for 5 years.
But then it doesn't say at any time about when you have to actually
come into compliance, which, of course, in existing law is set in
place. That's repealed.
And then it goes on to say they're going to have to meet a different
standard. The standard that's in the law is going to be replaced by
some other standard that basically waters it all down.
{time} 1340
The standard in the law, by the way, is the maximum achievable
control technology. That means technology that already achieves
reductions. But that will be wiped out. They'll have a new standard. It
can't be pursuant to the regulation; the regulation can't come out for
5 years; we don't know when it would ever be complied with; and it
would be based on a different standard.
That is not simple. That is in effect saying nothing is going to be
done. We repeal what is being set in law, and then we are going to
insist that nothing be done. That to me is an absurdity, and it's
harmful to the public that's going to be exposed to these harmful
chemicals.
I would at this time yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran), who is the lead appropriator on our side of the aisle when
it comes to these kinds of issues.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the distinguished ranking member, particularly for
his leadership in protecting the public's health.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. If this bill
is enacted, an intolerable number of American babies will be born with
birth defects that could have been avoided. The majority sets out a
false choice: roll back clean air protections or lose jobs. The real
choice is a moral one, but the economic case for defeating this bill is
also compellingly clear.
EPA cement kiln rules are designed to reduce harmful pollutants from
cement production, including metals like mercury, hydrocarbons,
particulate matter, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.
EPA's standards are both achievable and defensible. They will yield far
more economic benefits than costs, preserving jobs and Americans'
health.
[[Page H6577]]
The most harmful of these cement kiln pollutants is mercury. Congress
required EPA to regulate mercury emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and to identify the largest sources of mercury reductions.
EPA has done what we required. These regulations are necessary because
cement kilns are the second-largest source of mercury emissions in the
United States. Some cement kilns emit more mercury than some coal-fired
power plants. One hundred fifty cement kilns operating in the United
States emit as much as 27,500 pounds per year, double EPA's estimates
from 6 years ago. In Oregon, New York, and California, the largest
single mercury pollution source is a cement kiln.
Please focus on this: Mercury is so toxic that just one-seventieth of
a teaspoon of mercury, or .0024 ounces, can contaminate a 20-acre lake
and render the fish in that lake poisonous to eat. Mercury exposure
causes a number of health problems, including heart disease, reduced
fertility, genetic mutations, immune system suppression, premature
death, and major losses in children's mental capacity.
Elemental mercury from kilns goes up into the air. The rain washes it
into our rivers and streams. Then the bacteria in the water converts it
into methyl mercury, which is lethally poisonous, because methyl
mercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to
all our tissues, including the brain. It passes readily through the
placenta in a mother's womb and into the fetus and into the fetal
brain. Mercury then continues to impact the brains of those children as
they grow and age. We know this now, which was not as clear as it is
now, back in 1990. So if we know mercury does this to our children and
that these regs can prevent those children from such irreparable harm,
don't we have a concomitant moral responsibility to protect our
children from such intellectual deprivation and suffering for the
duration of their lives?
Let me say it again. It is well-documented that exposure even to low
levels of mercury does reduce a child's IQ. This IQ reduction has real
impacts on those children, their families, and ultimately the U.S.
economy. If the majority won't listen to health-based arguments,
perhaps they will listen to the economics of this issue.
Mercury exposure during pregnancy and childhood has direct and
indirect effects on that child's future earning potential. Mercury-
exposed children have harder times getting and keeping jobs later in
life, and their performance when they get those jobs is worse. The cost
to society of this IQ reduction is enormous, but it's not incalculable.
Independent scientific studies estimate that the cost is as high as
$22,300 per IQ point per child, which cumulatively amounts to $8.7
billion in lost potential per year, based on CDC studies of half a
million children who have blood cord mercury levels higher than 5.8
micrograms per liter, the level that adversely affects their IQ.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman.
We know this $8.7 billion can now be quantified.
There are so many other things that mercury does, I won't go into
them. But this cement kiln rule also applies to other harmful
pollutants.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the majority constantly urges us to
balance the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, but when
the benefits of regulating hazardous pollution substantially outweigh
the costs, as they do with mercury, all of a sudden that doesn't become
an issue for the debate. It ought to be an issue for the debate,
because it's about the future health of our children.
If we don't defeat this bill, if it were to be enacted, children will
suffer and our economy will become weaker. The fact is that we have
both a moral and an economic responsibility to defeat this bill, and
thus I urge its defeat.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Telecom Subcommittee of
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to touch on a couple of things. First of all, you can
tell we're into October and Halloween is coming because all the scare
tactics are out and on display.
We heard several things from the last speaker, and since I'm from the
State of Oregon, I want to point out, he mentioned that the biggest
polluter of mercury in Oregon is the cement kiln. Why is that? Because
we only have one coal plant and it's being closed. So that's it.
The cement factory in Durkee, Oregon, which is in my district, a
county of 16,000, 3 years ahead of any of these rules invested $20
million in the latest, most advanced technology to remove their
pollutants, reduce their emissions, $20 million, they reduced their
emissions by 90 percent, and what this rule would do, the MACT rule
under consideration here that we're trying to delay and bring common
sense to, it would put them out of business, because they're already
using the maximum achievable control technology that is available in
the world. They've reduced their emissions by over 90 percent on a
consistent basis. There isn't technology available to go further,
because the limestone found behind this plant that's been in operation
for, I don't know, 30 or 40 years, happens to have a little higher
level of mercury.
The Clean Air Act would allow the EPA to create a subcategory. They
chose not to. The Clean Air Act says you can't force a company to do
more substitution, and yet that's what would have to occur here--except
there's no limestone anywhere nearby.
According to the EPA's own ``Roadmap for Mercury'' study in 2006, 83
percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. originates from
international sources. This is the State of Oregon. Guess what's out
here somewhere: It would be China. We get it in from the atmosphere. So
what we're doing here is trading our jobs to China, buying our cement
there, they don't have these rules, we get their pollution, we lose,
and you put a plant out of business.
{time} 1350
You want to talk about jobs? There are 109 individuals who work at
the Ash Grove Cement Company in Durkee, Oregon. The Teamsters wrote to
me back in March, imploring me to do everything I could to ensure these
jobs:
``As you are aware, this cement plant is important to the community
in Durkee, and also, their product is vital to rebuilding and building
our infrastructure. Economic stability and jobs should be the number
one priority for all of us,'' Lynn Lehrbach, Representative, Joint
Council of Teamsters No. 37.
The entire Oregon delegation recently signed a letter to the EPA,
advocating Ash Grove for their Clean Air Excellence Award. In that
letter, it reads:
``Ash Grove's commitment to proactively reduce mercury emissions at
its Durkee, Oregon, plant 3 years ahead of the new EPA rules taking
effect is commendable. This type of action by Ash Grove's and their
ultimate success in making meaningful reductions is a model that others
should emulate.''
Yet if these rules were to go into effect, they can't meet the new
rules because the new rules would make them reduce their emissions by
98.4 percent. Now, this is the biggest employer in Baker County with
direct and indirect jobs of some 654 in the area. They have been a good
corporate citizen. They care about the people of Baker County and the
surrounding areas. They are working day and night to reduce their
emissions, and it's simply not achievable. Baker already has 10.7
percent unemployment. You take this away, and think what that
unemployment rate will be. They have reduced their emissions. The
emissions we're getting--83 percent according to the EPA--are already
coming in from elsewhere, deposited in the United States from
international sources, both natural and remitted.
Look, we're just trying to find some balance here. We're saying the
Clean Air Act set the maximum achievable control technology, but that
can't be met here. It doesn't work. They're already using the activated
carbon injection filtering system. They've already
[[Page H6578]]
spent $20 million to achieve their goals. We're just saying we care
about the jobs, too. We care about the air, and we care about the jobs.
So when Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before our
committee, I asked her, I'm concerned about these health problems.
Would you provide for me the effects in Baker County in Oregon that
you've demonstrated to come up with these data points.
Twenty-seven days later, we still have no response.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to save the jobs and to
bring responsible management to air control and quality improvement.
Joint Council of
Teamsters No. 37,
Portland, Oregon, March 31, 2011.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. Representative, Oregon District 2, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. Representative, Oregon District 2,
Medford, OR.
Dear Representative Walden: The current economic conditions
are affecting most of our Teamster Industries. One in
particular is our Durkee Cement Plant in your district.
The EPA/Oregon DEQ is attempting to shut the Durkee Cement
Plant down for not meeting emission standards. The Durkee
Plant spent $20 million to retrofit their plant to meet the
EPA's requirement. They came close, but no horseshoe.
As you are aware, this cement plant is important to the
community in Durkee, and also, their product is vital to
rebuilding and building our infrastructure. Economic
stability and jobs should be the No. 1 priority for all of
us.
We are asking for your help to keep the Durkee Cement Plant
in operation. Thank you for your attention to this most
important issue.
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Lynn R. Lehrbach,
Representative.
____
Congress of the
United States,
September 27, 2011.
Re Clean Air Excellence Awards--Ash Grove Cement Company,
Durkee, OR
Attn: Pat Childers,
U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Childers: Please accept our endorsement of Ash
Grove Cement Company's application for consideration of the
12th annual EPA Clean Air Excellence Awards in the categories
of Clean Air Technology and the Gregg Cooke Visionary Award.
Ash Grove commitment to proactively reduce mercury emissions
at its Durkee, Oregon, plant three, years ahead of the new
EPA rules taking effect is commendable. This type of action
by Ash Grove and their ultimate success in making meaningful
reductions is a model that others should emulate.
In 2008, after several years of involvement from citizens,
scientists and leaders from the local community and from
around Oregon, Ash Grove signed an agreement with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality to voluntarily reduce
mercury emissions at the Durkee plant. This led to the
development and implementation of a first-of-its-kind
Enhanced Activated Carbon Injection system, based on the best
available science and peer-reviewed technology in the world.
Ash Grove invested more than $20 million in this project with
the goal of reducing mercury emissions by at least 75
percent. In actuality, the mercury control efficiency has
been in excess of 95 percent.
Located in rural eastern Oregon, Ash Grove's Durkee plant
is the last remaining manufacturing business in Baker County.
Unfortunately, the region's limestone contains naturally high
concentrations of mercury due to the region's volcanic
geologic history. Ash Grove's willingness to step up and
address mercury emissions at its plant is vital to the
social, economic and environmental welfare of our
constituents.
We admire Ash Grove for proactively taking on this
important environmental challenge. The results of their
efforts will have a lasting benefit for Oregonians and the
U.S. for generations to come and they are deserving of
recognition for this contribution.
Respectfully yours,
Jeffrey A. Merkley,
U.S. Congress.
Ron Wyden,
U.S. Congress.
Greg Walden,
U.S. Congress.
Kurt Schrader,
U.S. Congress.
Earl Blumenauer,
U.S. Congress.
Peter DeFazio,
U.S. Congress.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon is pointing out
a real problem for his district, but it is a unique problem in his
district because the limestone that's used in the kiln has a high
content of mercury. I understand that EPA is trying to work through
that issue, but I do want to point out to my colleagues that this
example should not serve as the basis for this bill that's before us.
We've heard over and over again from my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle that 99 percent of the mercury in America comes from
nature, from outside other countries that the trade winds bring here to
our land. Chairman Barton even said most mercury that's emitted is
emitted by natural causes. In 2000, EPA estimated that roughly 60
percent--not 99 percent as Mr. Whitfield pointed out--of the total
mercury deposited in the United States comes from anthropogenic air
emission sources within the United States, such as from power plants,
incinerators, boilers, cement kilns, and others, and that the remaining
40 percent comes from the combination of sources of natural emissions
and remission into the United States from the wind.
It hasn't changed much since the year 2000. An example is one study
by the University of Michigan, which found that the majority of mercury
deposited at a monitoring site in eastern Ohio came from local and
regional sources. EPA estimated that 80 percent of the mercury
deposited in Pines Lake, New Jersey, comes from man-made U.S. sources.
There was a bit of peer-reviewed scientific study that found two-thirds
to three-quarters of the annual global mercury emissions are caused by
human activity. So let us not minimize the problem where those who are
living near these facilities are experiencing a great deal of harm.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Olson.
Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, today, the House takes another step to ensure a stable
regulatory environment for the cement industry. In a rush to regulate,
the EPA issued economically damaging rules that jeopardize 4,000
American jobs in the cement industry. The cement industry has stated
that it cannot comply with these rules even with the best current
technology.
CEMEX is a cement company with operations based in Houston, Texas.
They've asked Washington for help in negotiating with EPA on these
unachievable rules. CEMEX is just one company of many that Congress has
repeatedly heard from that may be forced to move operations overseas
where regulations are more reasonable.
EPA's failure to strike the proper regulatory balance puts U.S. jobs
in jeopardy and hurts our global competitiveness. The bill before the
House today simply gives EPA the needed time to ensure the rules are
reasonable and attainable in the real world.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2681, the Cement
Sector Regulatory Relief Act, so we can stop exporting American jobs.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2681, the
Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
H.R. 2681 is on the House floor today as part of the Republican
regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing government regulation on
businesses. This bipartisan bill would provide a much needed
legislative stay for the EPA to redraft new cement requirements that
would affect approximately 100 cement plants and thousands of jobs.
This type of government regulation hinders job creation and forces
American jobs overseas. The American public is growing increasingly
concerned about government regulation coming out of the Environmental
Protection Agency. A recent survey found that 74 percent of American
voters throughout the country believe that businesses and consumers are
overregulated. This overregulation has a chilling effect on job
creation.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2681 in an effort to rein in the
EPA and government regulation.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H6579]]
I think we can all agree on some things. I think Mr. Waxman would
agree and Mr. Moran, number one, that we want to preserve American jobs
if we can; but I think, number two, we don't want to compromise our
health standards. There has been a lot of talk today about we have to
either do one or the other, but I think we can do both.
Now, if you'll look at the EU, which passed what they call the ``gold
standard'' on emissions from cement plants, they determined that
mercury they could bring down to .05. What has the EPA said? They've
said they want to bring it down to .01. That's five times more
restrictive than in Europe. .5, which is the European standard, is
about four times more strict than in Mexico. I think we all agree that
even the EPA said we'd close 20 percent of our factories, but we would
get that cement, according to the Congressional Budget Office, from
Mexico, which is polluting our air and does not have nearly the
standards we have.
So if mercury is a problem, why would we shift production to
something that is four times more dangerous than even that of the
European Union? On the other hand, as to the European Union, which is
the strictest on environmental standards in the world now, why are
their standards so bad? They don't go below this.
One reason with mercury is it is naturally occurring. There's a
debate whether it's 60 or 40, but let me say this: At .01, it's
actually more severe than what is naturally occurring in some of the
supply.
{time} 1400
Yes, I have a vested interest. The second largest employer in my
second biggest county is a cement plant. The largest employer in one of
my cities of 20,000 people is a cement plant.
Those jobs won't exist. They're willing to spend $350,000; but in an
industry that only had $2 billion worth of revenue, there is no way
they can spend $10 billion.
Let's restore a little sanity, and we can do that. Common sense
dictates that we can have jobs, and we can have safety, and we can do
that not by these onerous standards on hydrochloric acid and other
things.
U.S. VS. EUROPEAN EMISSION STANDARDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. standards
Parameter (mg/Nm\3\ at 10% O2) (EPA final European
rule) standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury................................... 0.01 0.05
Hydrochloric Acid......................... 3.83 10
Particulate Matter........................ 7.72 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Office of Congressman Spencer Bachus.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cement Sector Regulatory
Relief Act. The cement industry is in its weakest economic condition
since the 1930s. Domestic demand for cement has dropped by more than 35
percent in the last 4 years, killing more than 4,000 manufacturing
jobs.
In March of last year, 136 cement workers were laid off at the Wampum
cement plant in my district. It was the oldest continuously operating
Portland cement manufacturing site in the United States, but now cement
production at Wampum has ceased and only 15 jobs remain.
Despite this bleak scenario, the EPA issued its regulation which has
a $3.4 billion price tag and standards that no cement plant in the
United States can achieve while demand languishes. The economy will
have to improve for these jobs to return to Wampum; but when the EPA
issues unfair, unachievable regulations, it sets these manufacturers
back even further.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on
this bill.
First, I am the co-chair of the Cement Caucus, along with Congressman
Mike Ross of Arkansas.
My district is the largest cement producing district in America. I
have a town in my district called Cementon. I have a high school team
called the Konkrete Kids. This is what we do in my district in large
part.
I have five cement plants, Lafarge, Buzzi, Keystone, Essroc,
Heidleberg-Hanson, Lehigh Portland cements. I have a company that
manufactures and constructs cement plants, FLSmidth-Fuller. This is a
big business where I live. It's an important business, the basic
industry and the manufacturing to the industrial sector of this
country.
These three rules that we are dealing with are going to have a
dramatically negative impact on cement production in America. Foreign
imports currently make up more than 20 percent of total U.S. cement
sales, and that number is going to grow if these regulations are
implemented.
Many of these foreign producers, as has been pointed out by some of
the previous speakers, do not operate with anything close to the types
of regulations that we are talking about here today, whether they be in
Europe or Mexico, China or elsewhere. And as has been stated
previously, close to 20 percent of all cement production facilities in
this country are likely to close as a result of these three rules.
What are they? It's NESHAP rule, which cobbles together a whole range
of different performance characteristics for different pollutants
without determining if it is possible for any single cement plant to
comply with all the various standards simultaneously.
Also one called CISWI--and I won't read the acronym--but that is
going to have an impact on the ability to use solid waste in the form
of tires, waste plastics, and other materials that we use in cement
plants. This material would be land-filled. We'd have unsightly tire
piles all over America, breeding grounds for mosquitos and West Nile
virus. We burn them in cement plants. They have high Btu content. This
will make it much more difficult, these rules, if they are implemented.
So we have to stop it.
So what this bill does, it scraps its three existing rules and
requires the EPA administrator to develop and propose more realistic
and achievable regulations within 15 months. This is completely
reasonable. Support this. This is about protecting American jobs. I
urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2681, and I just want to talk a little bit about the real-world
effects that have been alluded to.
I have firsthand knowledge. My family's company, now owned by my
cousins, but a company started by my father and my uncle has been in
the Redi Mix concrete business for over 40 years. I own a sand and
gravel company back in Michigan.
I just want to point out that this is actually not an attack on clean
air, as some of my colleagues on the other side have said. This stops
an attack on the American worker. Let's talk about some of those real-
world effects.
We will be buying more cement from outside the United States, as has
been pointed out, and it is much dirtier produced over there. What are
the challenges that we have been seeing in this industry over the last
few years?
We know that a soft economy means less construction. Other challenges
that we have been dealing with: increased fuel costs, increased health
care costs under ObamaCare and other requirements, increased
unemployment insurance requirements, increased labor regulations, now
even greater costs with little or no benefit directly coming to us.
I don't quite understand what my colleagues on the other side think
is going to happen when we are talking about building roads. Do they
want to drive on wooden roads? Do they want to live in mud brick hovels
and shiver in the cold?
I mean, we have got to have concrete and cement as the backbone of
the recovery here that we are going to be having. We will simply be
forced to buy that cement from outside the United
[[Page H6580]]
States, and I don't understand why this administration insists on
attacking the engine of our recovery.
This stops an attack on the American worker and job creators, and I
support the bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the gentleman from
Kentucky has more than one speaker?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker and he will be
closing. Other than that, I have no further requests for time.
Mr. WAXMAN. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, which side has the
prerogative to close?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Kentucky has
the right to close.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the EPA has been working on this regulation since the
1990s. Under the 1990 law, they are required to put in place a
regulation to protect from these toxic pollutants.
They are required to be put into place by the year 2000. They tried,
thrown it out of court, they have now tried again, and they have
already proposed a rule that is now going to be repealed by this
legislation. So it's taken them over a decade to finally get to this
point.
It's a long, overdue rule that requires cement kilns to reduce their
emissions of toxic air pollutants. EPA estimates that this rule will
reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92
percent, compared with projected levels, that is, if they are allowed
to remain in effect; and they also had to do a cost-benefit analysis.
They said that this rule will yield $7 to $19 in health benefits for
every dollar that's spent to meet the standards and will prevent up to
2,500 premature deaths and 17,000 asthma attacks each year. So EPA has
been mindful of the costs and the benefits.
The bill before us effectively vacates the cement rules, kiln rules,
nullifies these health benefits, forces EPA to start all over again.
They give EPA 15 months to come up with more regulation, and then they
bar EPA from enforcing any final rules for at least 5 years.
During all this time--and we have no guarantee after 5 years if
anything will happen--cement kilns will avoid having to clean up their
toxic air pollution, maybe indefinitely. The bill threatens EPA's
ability to ever reissue limits on toxic air pollution from cement
kilns.
{time} 1410
This bill that's before us would set a new and unworkable
methodology. They're not looking at the methodology that Congress
provided to at least use the maximum achievable control limits. They
will simply be told they have to take a subjective approach that lumps
all pollutants together, and then they have to decide whether emitting
more mercury but less lead is better or worse for public health than
the reverse. It's an impossible choice. It's going to guarantee years
of litigation.
The bill prevents EPA from setting any emission limits at all. Under
this legislation, it would require EPA to select regulatory
alternatives that are the least burdensome. But the ``least
burdensome'' to cement kilns does not mean that we will get the option
that provides the best public health benefits. In effect, the bill
would exempt cement kilns from ever having to achieve meaningful
reductions in toxic air pollution.
So in other words, they postpone the time for regulation, then
postpone for 5 more years compliance with that regulation. They change
the standard from the maximum achievable under existing technology to
something else. The something else is the least burdensome to the
kilns. And during all that time, we will have people exposed to these
toxic pollutants.
This strikes me as not a simple, fair-minded approach. It's turning
our back on the purpose of the Clean Air Act. It's turning our back on
the harm that's going to be done, especially to children, from the
poisoning they'll get from the mercury levels from the cement kilns.
I think this is inexcusable legislation. I think we ought to stay
with the work done by the EPA, not pass a law, tell them to do the job,
and then wipe out their work after 11 years and say we want another
decade or more to get around to doing regulations that should have
already been in place long ago.
I want you to know that many organizations oppose this regulation.
You would expect all of the public health groups and the environmental
groups, but even sporting organizations and outdoor groups and the
people who work in the field at the State level on air pollution
matters tell us: Do not support this legislation.
I urge opposition to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2681, a bill
designed to prevent the collapse of a strategic domestic industry, the
United States cement industry.
About a year ago, I became active on this issue and made it a
priority of mine to help save the American cement industry and the
hardworking Americans at work in those industries. Some have questioned
my motives, and they are welcome to do that. But for me it's as simple
as this: The new regulations on the cement industry is the wrong rule
at the wrong time. It asks too much too soon. NESHAP is a rule based on
questionable science and promises to export American jobs and,
ultimately, result in the import of pollution from other countries.
The U.S. cement industry is suffering through the greatest decline
since the 1930s, with current employment down to a mere 15,000 jobs and
less than $6.5 billion in 2010 annual revenues. This represents a 25
percent reduction in employment and over a 35 percent reduction in
revenues from prerecession levels. The cement and concrete product
manufacturing sectors combined have shed more than 62,000 jobs between
2005 and 2009.
At this critical time when the cement industry can least afford
significant investments from new mandates, analysts estimate this
single EPA rule would cost $3.4 billion in compliance costs,
representing approximately half of the cement industry's annual
revenues. This is very onerous. Let us repeat, Mr. Chairman, the NESHAP
rule will cost $3.4 billion compliance costs out of a $6.5 billion
annual revenue. That's over 50 percent of the industry's revenues.
Now, if you own a cement plant, where is the money for compliance
costs going to come from? Probably from closing down a plant, stalling
plans for the construction of new plants, and laying off American
workers in high-paying jobs. The average low job in this industry is
around $60,000 a year, and they go up from there.
Common sense is the missing ingredient in NESHAP. In fact, at the
same time that the EPA finalized the NESHAP emission standards last
fall, we just saw a chart that the European Union had just issued their
own compliance standards, and the EPA standards are five times more
stringent than the famous model of the European Union. So what's wrong
with this picture?
Speaking of common sense, if you want to remember that map that we
just looked at, the map that shows you all the colors, the red part of
that map represents between 80 and 100 percent of the estimated mercury
deposits, and they're all from foreign sources.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is the wrong rule at the wrong time, and what
we are doing here fixes this problem and gives us time to study.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair. We are lucky in Nebraska.
Our unemployment rate is currently around 4.2%.
Personally, I'd like to see it be an even smaller number.
Without passage of H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250, we will see job loss in
Nebraska.
With regards to the Boiler MACT rules--Nebraska estimates a potential
job loss of 921 jobs at a cost of over 57 million dollars.
With regards to the Cement MACT rules--Nebraska estimates a cost of
$24-28 million to keep the approximately 135 jobs.
[[Page H6581]]
These bills give EPA time to reconsider and re-propose these
regulations so the final rules are achievable and based on real-world
technologies.
We like our low unemployment numbers in Nebraska and passing these
two bills will help ensure our numbers stay low.
Mr. President, don't let the EPA kill jobs in my state.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation,
which would delay for another five years Clean Air Act standards for
cement kilns that are already thirteen years overdue.
Like so many other bills the current House Leadership has brought
before us, this bill is premised on a fundamentally false choice--that
we can't have good jobs unless we are willing to breathe dirty air. I
don't believe that. And I don't think most Americans believe that. In
fact, the entire forty year history of the Clean Air Act demonstrates
conclusively that it just isn't true.
The Clean Air Act protections at issue in this legislation will for
the first time limit mercury, arsenic, soot, hydrochloric acid and
other dangerous emissions from cement kilns. The proposed reductions
will prevent as many as 2500 premature deaths and 17,000 asthma attacks
annually, and produce $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every $1
spent on cleanup costs. Which is why the protections have the support
of reputable public health organizations like the American Lung
Association, the American Public Health Association and the Asthma and
Allergy Foundation of America.
Rather than undermining our nation's public health, we should be
focused on enacting a real jobs agenda to put Americans back to work
and accelerate our economic recovery.
I urge a no vote.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chair, to spur job creation in this country, we must
remove burdensome regulations stifling our job creators.
The EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT rule is set
to crush our cement manufacturers.
Eastern Kansas has three cement manufacturers who employ thousands. I
recently toured plants at Monarch Cement in Humboldt, Ashgrove Cement
in Iola and LaFarge Cement in Fredonia, and heard a similar story from
all three.
They have the revenue stream and the desire to hire more Kansans, but
the cost of complying with Government regulations, like the cement
MACT, restrict their ability to do so.
The EPA shouldn't be implementing regulations that do more economic
damage than they achieve in environmental good.
I hope the EPA will take this opportunity to reform this rule and be
part of the solution rather than the problem.
Let's end over regulation and get Americans back to work.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2681
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cement Sector Regulatory
Relief Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE STAY.
(a) Establishment of Standards.--In place of the rules
specified in subsection (b), and notwithstanding the date by
which such rules would otherwise be required to be
promulgated, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (in this Act referred to as the
``Administrator'') shall--
(1) propose regulations for the Portland cement
manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants subject to
any of the rules specified in subsection (b)--
(A) establishing maximum achievable control technology
standards, performance standards, and other requirements
under sections 112 and 129, as applicable, of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429); and
(B) identifying non-hazardous secondary materials that,
when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units of such
industry and plants are solid waste under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; commonly referred to as
the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery Act'') for purposes
of determining the extent to which such combustion units are
required to meet the emissions standards under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412) or the emission standards
under section 129 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7429); and
(2) finalize the regulations on the date that is 15 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Stay of Earlier Rules.--
(1) The following rule is of no force or effect, shall be
treated as though such rule had never taken effect, and shall
be replaced as described in subsection (a): ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement Plants'', published at 75
Fed. Reg. 54970 (September 9, 2010).
(2) The following rules are of no force or effect, shall be
treated as though such rules had never taken effect, and
shall be replaced as described in subsection (a), insofar as
such rules are applicable to the Portland cement
manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants:
(A) ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'', published at 76
Fed. Reg. 15704 (March 21, 2011).
(B) ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
That Are Solid Waste'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456
(March 21, 2011).
SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE DATES.
(a) Establishment of Compliance Dates.--For each regulation
promulgated pursuant to section 2, the Administrator--
(1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards
and requirements under such regulation that is,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not earlier than
5 years after the effective date of the regulation; and
(2) in proposing a date for such compliance, shall take
into consideration--
(A) the costs of achieving emissions reductions;
(B) any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements of the standards and requirements;
(C) the feasibility of implementing the standards and
requirements, including the time needed to--
(i) obtain necessary permit approvals; and
(ii) procure, install, and test control equipment;
(D) the availability of equipment, suppliers, and labor,
given the requirements of the regulation and other proposed
or finalized regulations of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
(E) potential net employment impacts.
(b) New Sources.--The date on which the Administrator
proposes a regulation pursuant to section 2(a)(1)
establishing an emission standard under section 112 or 129 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429) shall be treated as
the date on which the Administrator first proposes such a
regulation for purposes of applying the definition of a new
source under section 112(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
7412(a)(4)) or the definition of a new solid waste
incineration unit under section 129(g)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 7429(g)(2)).
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to restrict or otherwise affect the provisions of
paragraphs (3)(B) and (4) of section 112(i) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)).
SEC. 4. ENERGY RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and to ensure
the recovery and conservation of energy consistent with the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; commonly
referred to as the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act''), in promulgating rules under section 2(a) addressing
the subject matter of the rules specified in section 2(b)(2),
the Administrator--
(1) shall adopt the definitions of the terms ``commercial
and industrial solid waste incineration unit'', ``commercial
and industrial waste'', and ``contained gaseous material'' in
the rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing
Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 75338 (December 1, 2000);
and
(2) shall identify non-hazardous secondary material to be
solid waste only if--
(A) the material meets such definition of commercial and
industrial waste; or
(B) if the material is a gas, it meets such definition of
contained gaseous material.
SEC. 5. OTHER PROVISIONS.
(a) Establishment of Standards Achievable in Practice.--In
promulgating rules under section 2(a), the Administrator
shall ensure that emissions standards for existing and new
sources established under section 112 or 129 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429), as applicable, can be met under
actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently
with emission standards for all other air pollutants
regulated by the rule for the source category, taking into
account variability in actual source performance, source
design, fuels, inputs, controls, ability to measure the
pollutant emissions, and operating conditions.
(b) Regulatory Alternatives.--For each regulation
promulgated pursuant to section 2(a), from among the range of
regulatory alternatives authorized under the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) including work practice standards
under section 112(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(h)), the
Administrator shall impose the least burdensome, consistent
with the purposes of such Act and Executive Order 13563
published at 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (January 21, 2011).
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for
printing in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in a daily issue dated October 4, 2011, or earlier and except
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
received may be offered only by a Member who caused it to be printed or
a designee and shall be considered as read if printed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H6582]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION FOR INFANTS AND CHILDREN.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules
identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions
from any cement kiln if such emissions are harming brain
development or causing learning disabilities in infants or
children.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, chronic exposure to
carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other dangerous chemicals can take a
terrible toll on people's health, particularly in communities that live
in the shadows of major sources of pollution. I have next to me here a
diagram, a picture of cement kilns next to an elementary school.
Everyone in this Chamber probably knows someone who's been stricken
by cancer or who has a child with a learning disability or birth
defect. Environmental pollution does not cause all cancers or every
health problem, but numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies tell us
that chemicals classified as carcinogens cause cancers, and those
cancers sicken and kill real people.
Chemicals classified as neurotoxins damage the nerve system. They
pose a particular threat to infants and developing brains. These
effects are significant, tragic, and avoidable. That's why Republicans
and Democrats together voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to
require dozens of industry sectors to step up and install modern
pollution controls on their facilities.
The American people were tired of having their communities harmed by
toxic air pollution. They didn't want to live in fear that the factory
down the road would give their children cancer or damage their baby's
brain. We made a promise to the American people that EPA would require
polluters to cut their emissions of mercury, lead, dioxins, and other
air pollutants linked to serious health effects.
The Clean Air Amendments of 1990 set up an effective program to
reduce toxic air pollution. It would achieve cost effective pollution
reductions by simply requiring facilities to use pollution controls
that others in their industry were already using.
Since 1990, EPA has set these emission standards for more than 100
different categories of industrial sources. They've reduced emissions
of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons
each year.
{time} 1420
But today, this Chamber is seriously proposing to just let these
cement kilns pollute our communities with impunity. Cement kilns are
one of the largest sources of mercury pollution. For far too long, they
were allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce
their emissions. In August of last year, EPA finally issued standards
they've been working on since the late 1990s. EPA estimated these rules
will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92
percent, compared with projected levels. The rules would also cut
emissions of hydrocarbons by 83 percent and particulate matter by 92
percent.
But the bill that's before us would nullify those rules, and they
would force EPA to start all over again with another rulemaking, using
new and unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health
protections will be delayed, at a minimum, for 6 more years and maybe
forever.
And the bill doesn't just delay. By changing the approach adopted in
1990, it threatens EPA's very ability to issue replacement standards
for cement kilns that will achieve any meaningful reductions in mercury
pollution.
EPA testified before our committee, and they said that this
legislation would create new legal ambiguities that would tie up the
new rule in litigation for years. Other clean air lawyers testified
this bill would eviscerate the ability of the law to control air toxics
for cement kilns.
But the Republicans have charged forward in what amounts to
legislative negligence. And they say reassuring things like, this is a
commonsense, minor approach delaying it for a little while. Well, we
cannot afford additional delays. We cannot afford to lose these
protections altogether. All across America, communities are living in
the shadow of these plants. And I again refer you to this picture.
These are plants next door to an elementary school, and nearby these
kids and their families live. And the closer you live, the more exposed
you are. All of these people who live near these facilities are running
a very high risk for dreaded diseases.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific studies show that
babies and children who are exposed to mercury may suffer damage to
their developing nervous systems, hurting their ability to think,
learn, and speak. Children will never reach their full potential.
That is why I ask that we support this amendment that says, in
effect, let's not wait any longer when it comes to something that deals
with poisoning our kids from mercury.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
for the simple reason that in 1999, EPA issued a rule for cement plants
in which it regulated emissions from cement plants. All of us are very
much aware of the health hazards of certain emissions. And that's why
we support the ruling of the EPA in 1999.
Now, in 2006, EPA came back with a new cement rule. But the
environmental groups challenged that in court. And so as a result of
that challenge, EPA went back, and they came out with the new Cement
MACT rules that are the subject of our legislation today. And as we
said during the general debate, the economy is unusually weak today,
our unemployment is high today, and we think we need a more balanced
approach than what EPA came out with in its most recent cement rule,
which is in effect, but compliance is not expected until 2013.
So we simply are staying that rule with this legislation asking EPA
to come out with a new Cement MACT within 15 months after passage of
our legislation and then give industry 5 years to comply, and longer,
if the EPA administrator decides to do that. Now, looking at the
history of this administrator, I can't conceive that she would be
willing to give them any more than that 5 years, but that would be her
choice.
So I would urge the Members to oppose this amendment because we
already have some basic protections in there. We have the 1999 rule
that is in effect if we are successful in passing this legislation that
would negate the most recent Cement MACT rule. And as I said before, we
hear today from businesses all over the country who are talking about
the uncertainty--particularly because of the excess of regulations
coming out from EPA--not knowing what standards are required, and in
many instances not even having technology that's available to meet the
standards.
So I think our H.R. 2681 is a reasonable approach: Ask EPA to step
back, propose a new rule, do it within 15 months and give the industry
5 years. And for that reason, I would reiterate all of us have the same
concerns that the gentleman from California has. I do not believe that
his amendment is necessary, and I would urge all of our Members to
oppose his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I rise in support of the Waxman
amendment, and without the amendment I rise in opposition to H.R. 2681,
the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
As we all know, cement plants are one of the primary sources of
mercury pollution in the U.S. In my State of Texas alone, there are 10
cement plants which emitted 225 pounds of mercury in 2009 alone. It
takes only one-seventieth of a teaspoon of mercury to contaminate a 25-
acre lake and render the fish unsafe to eat. And children are the most
vulnerable.
[[Page H6583]]
Mercury exposure impairs a child's ability to learn, write, walk,
talk, and read. As a registered nurse, I have seen firsthand how
children are particularly sensitive to emissions of mercury and other
air toxins. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot stand by and watch
these emissions go unchecked.
I have always been a strong and proud defender of EPA's charge to
protect public health and the environment. In 2009, I led a letter to
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling for even stronger emissions
standards to reduce mercury pollution. Last year, I was pleased to see
that EPA finalized standards for cement plant emissions that will
reduce mercury and particulate matter pollution by over 90 percent,
resulting in health savings of up to $18 billion each year.
Despite all the talk that we have heard in recent months, EPA
regulations do not kill jobs. As the ranking member of the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee, I know that our Nation's scientific,
entrepreneurial, and industrial sectors have and will innovate to meet
new standards as they always have. We will reduce air pollution in this
country while creating thousands of jobs.
The predictions of widespread economic disruption and collapse of our
industrial sector because of what some have called the overreaching
Clean Air Act have been proven wrong time and again. We should expect
that today's hysteria is no different.
Therefore, I stand with the citizens of Texas and impacted
communities across the Nation in opposing this bill and not with the
big polluters. Congress passed the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, and we
have cleaner air today because of it. But we can always do better. And
that is why we must support the purpose and the mission of the EPA and
oppose this bill without this amendment. We are not here to kill jobs,
but we are here to save lives.
{time} 1430
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I listened to Mr. Waxman's argument, and I looked at his amendment.
And this amendment targets a specific health issue: brain development
and learning disabilities in infant children. We believe the EPA should
consider all public health risks.
Mr. Waxman raised the issue of accusing the Republicans of, as he
said, ``legislative negligence.'' I'm sure it was not legislative
negligence on the part of Mr. Waxman when he failed to include cancer
in this bill even though in his argument to this august body he
certainly argued that this amendment would help with cancer.
The truth is this amendment addresses one public health issue, the
disability of children, and it addresses it as it relates to mercury.
And we've heard arguments in this Chamber about mercury, but we've also
seen the air studies that have been done by the electric industry in
which they tell us that, at least west of the Mississippi, somewhere
between 80 percent and 100 percent of all the mercury pollution in that
area comes from outside the United States.
Where outside the United States is fairly obvious, China and India,
which have the largest amount of Portland cement manufacturing in the
world, also the least amount of protection of the air quality. They are
polluting somewhere between 80 and 100 percent of mercury, which is
what, according to the argument from the other side, is the issue here.
It is not cancer, and this does not address cancer. It is harming the
brain development of infant children--mercury.
So if almost 100 percent of it is west of the Mississippi, then more
than half the country is polluted from outside this country. And yet we
would shut down factories and force them to move to places like China
and India--where there is no protection for the health of anybody on
this globe--so that they can stay in business because we have adopted a
1 percent standard rather than the 5 percent standard from our so-
called ``model'' of the future, the European Union. Now, I think that
we need to question this amendment.
I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
However, the underlying bill actually nullifies the EPA's rules to
require cement kilns to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury and
other toxic pollutants and forces EPA to go back to square one. In
doing so, this bill nullifies the rule's promised reductions in mercury
pollution from cement kilns, delays any potential future reductions,
and threatens EPA's ability to issue replacement standards that will
achieve the same benefit for public health.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Babies born to women exposed to
mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developmental and
neurological abnormalities, including delayed onset of walking, delayed
onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and learning disabilities. This is
certainly an important issue for Democrats and Republicans to support.
In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act on a bipartisan basis to
reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from a range of
industrial sources, including cement kilns. Cement kilns are one of the
largest sources of airborne mercury pollution in the United States. For
far too long, they have been allowed to pollute without installing
modern technology to reduce their emissions of mercury and other toxic
chemicals. The Clean Air Act directed EPA to issue standards to cut
emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from cement kilns by
2000. That was a decade ago. EPA didn't finalize these rules until
August of last year.
EPA estimates that the rules will reduce mercury emissions from
cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected
levels. Now the Republican leadership wants to nullify these rules to
cut mercury pollution and delay these important public health
protections. Further delay is unacceptable for the people who have been
waiting for these cement kilns to clean up for years.
This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from a
cement kiln if that kiln is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants
that are damaging babies' developing brains.
The Republicans deny that this bill is an attack on the Clean Air Act
or public health. They argue that this bill won't prevent EPA from
reducing toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns. I strongly
disagree. And these statements stand in stark contrast to the body of
science linking mercury exposure to neurological problems.
And I have to say, instead of working to create jobs, Republicans are
bringing up another assault on our public health and the Clean Air Act.
We should be passing the President's American Jobs Act and other pieces
of emergency jobs legislation that create jobs as soon as possible. But
instead of focusing on jobs, the GOP wants to eliminate and delay Clean
Air Act regulations. This will jeopardize our public health and the
clean air that we breathe.
This clean air regulation will reduce toxic pollutants produced by
cement plants and will prevent 2,500 premature deaths every year. This
regulation also will provide up to $19 million in public health
benefits for every dollar spent on reducing harmful air pollution. So
we have to support the amendments that are going to protect the public
health of our people.
I urge support of the Waxman amendment, and all of the amendments
that are coming today, for the sake of the public health of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about common
sense. Unfortunately, I don't think we're hearing much of that coming
out of the other side because they're talking out of both sides of
their mouth here. How in the world does a 20 percent reduction in the
number of cement plants in the United States, out of the 100 that we
have, how
[[Page H6584]]
does that 20 percent loss, or estimation of 18 to 20 cement plants,
equal more jobs? I'm a little lost. I know I'm a freshman here, but I'm
lost as to how, when we're shutting down businesses, that equals more
jobs.
I'm also curious about how in the world we can call this a Maximum
Achievable Control Technology when people in the industry and people
outside the industry say it's not achievable. We might as well call it
the ``maximum dreamed-up control technology.'' We've got to introduce
some common sense to this.
Now, we can solve all of our pollution issues coming out of cement
plants by shutting every single one of them down. We can shut every
single one of those 100 plants down here in the United States. I do not
think that India is going to shut theirs down. I don't think China is
going to be shutting theirs down. I know Indonesia is not going to be
shutting theirs down. I'm betting our friends and neighbors in Canada
aren't going to be shutting theirs down.
So we can shut down every single cement plant. That's not going to
solve our problems, though, because we have to keep going further.
We've got to shut down every power plant. We've got to stop driving
every car, every bus, every train. We might as well ban campfires,
grilled foods--and cancel Christmas while we're at it. There has got to
be some common sense involved here.
Ontario tried this a few years ago when they were going to shut down
all of their coal-fired power plants. Their goal: get rid of them all.
The outcome: not a single one--zero--was shut down because they know
that it wasn't possible. And we're seeing here a proposed regulation
that is five times more stringent than what our friends in the European
Union are talking about, and in Canada: five times more stringent. How
is that going to make the United States more competitive, and how is
that going to retain jobs here?
Mr. Chairman, we have got to make sure that, instead of using the
``maximum dreamed-up control technology,'' we actually use the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology. And that is what we have today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to respond to the gentleman who
just spoke about how they're going to shut down these plants. Why do
they have to shut down the plants? If they have to put in a control
technology that's already being used somewhere else in the country to
reduce that mercury pollution, that other cancer-causing pollution,
they put the equipment in. They pay for it.
Now, cement kilns are having financial problems, not because of these
regulations, but because of the low demand for cement. The industry
admits this on their Web site, and they have a problem. But we are
telling them that when the economy starts picking up, they'll get a
greater demand. But we also want to make sure that they put in the
control technology. They don't have to close just simply to do that.
{time} 1440
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman prior to me asked, where is the
common sense?
Well, common sense begins with science, and the science is clear. I
want to let the gentleman know that all sense is not common sense. In
this instance, common sense begins with the science, and the science is
absolutely clear that EPA must be able to reduce toxic pollution from
the cement manufacturing process.
Cement kilns across the U.S. produce more toxic air pollutants,
including mercury, arsenic, acid gases, hydrochloric acid, dioxins, and
other harmful pollutants that add to the nation's problems with soot
and smog. Cement kilns are the third-largest source of mercury
emissions in the U.S.
Toxic air pollutants can cause cancer, impair brain development and
the ability to learn, damage the eyes, skin, and breathing passages,
harm the kidneys, harm the lungs, harm the nervous system, and cause
pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and premature death.
Cleaning up cement kilns saves lives and protects children from
hazardous air pollutants. EPA estimates that reducing toxic pollution
from cement kilns can save up to 2,500 lives each year by 2013. The
limit will annually prevent 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 asthma attacks,
over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits, and 130,000 missed days
of work.
The most vulnerable populations depend on the EPA to protect them
from the harmful health effects of cement kiln pollution. Children,
teens, senior citizens, and people who exercise or work outdoors or
with chronic lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, emphysema, these are
the children and the people who are most in danger.
People with low incomes or who are members of racial and ethnic
minorities are disproportionately affected by air pollution, in part,
because they tend to live closer to industrial facilities such as
cement kilns.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific studies, common
sense studies, show that babies and children who are exposed to mercury
may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting their
ability to think, learn, and speak.
Children exposed to mercury may never ever reach their full
potential. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that each year
about 60,000 American children are born right here in the U.S. with
neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance
because of exposure to mercury in utero.
The Waxman amendment is straightforward. It is common sense. It
states that the EPA can continue to require a cement kiln to clean up
toxic air pollution if that kiln is emitting mercury or other toxic
pollutants that are causing damage to infants' developing brains.
This amendment simplifies our choice. Allow polluters to continue to
harm children, to harm infants, or require facilities that are actually
harming our kids to reduce their pollution. It's not too much to ask,
and I ask the Members to support the Waxman amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, job creators across a wide range of
industry have sent urgent calls to Washington pleading for Congress to
remove burdensome regulations that could destroy hundreds of thousands
of jobs nationwide.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with two of America's job
creators, Karl Watson from Houston, Texas, who represents CEMEX, a
global leader in the building materials industry, and Brad Slabaugh of
Hilltop Basic Resources, a small building materials and ready-mixed
concrete producer from Ohio.
While these job creators may hail from different regions of the
country, and one employs thousands of workers, versus the one that
employs several hundred middle class Americans, they both face the same
challenges under the Obama administration's oppressive regulatory
regime. That is why Mr. Watson and Mr. Slabaugh came to Washington this
week, to discuss their real world examples of how the Obama
administration burdensome regulatory policy is devastating to the
concrete production industry and to virtually all American employers
and job creators. The worst offender that is inflicting this regulatory
flaw under the Obama administration is the Environmental Protection
Agency.
This week the House is tackling some of the most economically
dangerous regulations that the EPA has imposed on our Nation's
creators, Boiler MACT and Cement MACT. These unwarranted and
indefensible regulations are costing hundreds of thousands of much-
needed American jobs at a time when unemployment stands at 9.1 percent
and families and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat.
Worse yet, both appear to be based upon ideology versus sound science
and real word cost-benefit analyses. Both the Boiler MACT and Cement
MACT could have a combined economic impact of more than 230,000
existing American jobs lost and $14.4 billion in
[[Page H6585]]
projected compliance, according to the Council on Industrial Boilers.
In my home State of Texas, which is home to 27 boiler facilities, the
economic impact of the Boiler MACT rule on boiler and process heater
owners and operators is well over $200 million, putting thousands of
good-paying jobs at risk, and opening the door to further burdens, not
only for large industrial boilers, but also important institutions such
as hospitals and universities.
This additional regulatory damage comes within 2 weeks of a large
Texas power producer that has announced, due to the EPA's Cross State
Air Pollution Rule, it will cause the loss of 500 middle class American
jobs and the closure of five job sites in Texas.
The Cement MACT regulations that CEMEX and Hilltop face are some of
the harshest of seven proposed or recently finalized EPA regulations
targeting an already weakened cement industry. The Portland Cement
Association estimates that the Cement MACT would force the shutdown of
up to 20 percent of the Nation's 100 existing cement plants, and that
does not include the seven plants that have already announced, due to
economic or other reasons, that they have faced permanent closure since
2008.
Both CEMEX and Hilltop are experiencing depressed volume levels and
are having to shed middle class jobs as they respond to increasing
economic uncertainty being generated by unelected, unaccountable
Washington bureaucrats. If the commonsense relief that we are currently
considering does not pass, these companies will face the shutdown of up
to 20 percent of their operations. Such a decrease in production
capacity of the cement industry would have a ripple impact across the
economy, impacting not only cement manufacturing jobs, but also
industries that rely heavily on them, such as construction and
building.
Worse yet, for all Americans, these jobs and plants will be relocated
to foreign countries, further damaging America's already declining
industrial base and middle class job opportunities. The bipartisan
legislation coming to the floor today will provide the EPA with at
least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new rules regarding the
economically dangerous Boiler MACT and Cement MACT.
Without this commonsense regulatory relief, the EPA's current rules
endanger hundreds of thousands of American middle class jobs nationwide
by forcing plant shutdowns and relocation of American manufacturing and
jobs to foreign countries.
Congress and this administration can and should encourage private
sector job growth in this country, not hinder it with unreasonable
regulations.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Obama
administration to join me in removing barriers to job creation and
support both H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, and H.R.
2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
{time} 1450
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. I rise in support of the Waxman amendment. As long as Mr.
Waxman has been in the Congress, he should know that recently a new
group has arrived here, and there are three things that you shouldn't
do, and that is ask for anything that might be good for the President
of the United States, ask for anything that could improve the
environment of the people that breathe the air, and for God's sake
don't ask them to bring up any bills that could create jobs.
Having said that, it just seems to me that we're involved in a
political fight that concerns Democrats and Republicans and others; and
yet you would think if you listened to the debate that the air in which
we breathe, there's a Democratic area and there's a Republican area, or
when you start talking about this is saving lives through providing an
opportunity for our youngsters to be able to grow up in a healthy
environment that we're just talking about Democratic babies. What we're
talking about--pardon the word ``scientific''--is a connection between
pollution of the air and how people breathe it and what happens to
their general health.
I don't really believe that anyone challenges the fact that whether
it happens on a 9/11 site or on a coal mine that what you breathe is
going to have an impact and if indeed it leads to illnesses, that's
going to be very costly. And so it just seems to me that if we
concentrate on what can we do, I know there are people who don't like
the President, but there are millions of people that go to sleep every
night wondering what the heck are we doing in the Congress, and it just
seems so unfair for us to go back and say, we cannot bring out a bill
that the President proposed that's going to create jobs.
It would be different if we said we're going to bring it out, and
we're not going to vote for it; or we're not going to bring it out
because we have our own bill. It just seems to me that very few
Americans are going to sleep at night wondering what happens at cement
factories throughout the United States. Maybe those from Texas or those
that have one or two in their districts might have some concern as to
whether it would cost their employers and businesspeople in order to
clean the air, but that's a constant problem we always have when it
costs a little extra to do the right thing to extend the value and,
indeed, the condition of life.
But to get back to jobs, there's something going on in America; and I
don't know whether or not it reaches the floor, since the best place to
find out what's going on in the country is right here, as we come from
435 different areas and we come to tell what's happening.
In New York, people are mad as hell. They're not going to take it
anymore. They're not against Democrats; they're not against
Republicans. They just don't see why they have to suffer the way they
do after some of them have lost their ability to go to school, have
lost their jobs, have lost their savings, have no idea what the future
looks like for them, and we're not even giving them hope.
Hope has made our middle class, not the rich that control most of the
Nation's wealth, and certainly not the poor that people all over the
world would like to escape. But when you see the hope for the middle
class just dropping and squeezing and pushing people into poverty, it
seems to me that we have a higher responsibility than that.
Often I ask for our spiritual leaders to help us, because, hey, it's
right over the Speaker: ``In God We Trust.'' That means that we don't
have to trust each other, but maybe if some of the rabbis, ministers,
and Catholics could come down and try to get our priorities in order,
because if you're talking about human life, that includes the ability
to have health care, to have a healthy environment in terms of housing,
and I think we do have a moral obligation not only to get ready for the
polls in 2012 but to do something for the people who are so completely
helpless now.
I would like to emphasize that there's no way to split up the jobs
with Democrats or Republicans, and so we are not being fair to the
Republicans or that the cement is going to hurt us and not you. These
things are so nonpolitical that I just hope that someday, and someday
very, very soon, we will respond to the frustrated people we have, even
the wealthy, and come up with something on the floor that whether we
win or lose, we can be so very proud that we're doing something to
improve the economy, put America back to work, have things once again
made in America.
I want to thank the gentleman from California for at least directing
us to the right track, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was proud to work with my colleagues on the committee in developing
the Cement Regulatory Relief Act.
Let's just take a quick gander at what's happened here. Last
September, the EPA released new regulations--that's kind of a theme
we've been hearing a lot lately--new regulations on the American cement
industry. These new requirements will cost $3.4 billion, it will close
18 of America's 100 cement plants, and leave 20,000 more Americans
without jobs. In my district alone,
[[Page H6586]]
the 11th Congressional District in Illinois, 155 companies use that
cement daily.
This is the same story, but just a little bit of a different subject:
the same story of over-regulation, more government, more rules, more
paperwork, more disclaimers, more everything that people are sick of in
Washington, D.C. This is just more of it. This is typical of over-
regulation. Somebody comes up with an idea and says, what's the sane
thing to do here, or what can we do that will way overstep the role of
the Federal Government? Well, that's exactly what came down within the
rules.
All we want to do is give a little more time for the cement industry,
instead of saying, well, this is catching us flatfooted again, 18 of
our plants are going to close, we're looking at this and saying, how
can we keep these open and create jobs? There's been a lot of talk in
this body, as there should be, about creating jobs, about the economy.
Look, I'm 100 percent in. We want to create jobs, and so some of the
things we see are, well, we need to spend additional Federal Government
money, the size of what we'll call stimulus 2.
I tell you what we need to do. The very first step to creating jobs
in this country is to stop killing them. That would be a great move in
the right direction. If we stop killing jobs, then we can regroup and
say, now how can jobs be created in the private sector? Yet we continue
on and on with more and more regulation. We now hear the industry
saying, look, this is going to cost 20,000 jobs. It's your prerogative
out of Washington, but this is going to cost us 20,000 jobs. This is
typical Federal Government over-regulation.
We have a responsibility here to do the right thing. We have a
responsibility to do the economically and environmentally sound thing.
When this rule goes into effect, the same amount of cement is going to
be needed, so it's not like we're closing 18 of 100 plants and we're
going to use 18 of 100 plants' less worth of cement.
We're still going to need to use that cement. Right? In fact, in the
stimulus 2, they talk about the fact of spending more on cement. Well,
then, okay. So what happens is these plants close, and we have to buy
that cement from China. This is a great bill, and not the one where
we're talking about saving jobs here, but if these rules go into
effect, that will be great for creating jobs in China, and China has
zero environmental constraints like we have here in the United States.
So what's the environmentally right thing to do? Keep these jobs in
the United States, where there are good environmental regulations in
place, take a look at what we need to do, but not send them over to a
country that all they care about is pumping out cement, and they care
nothing about the environment. That's the responsible thing to do. This
bill simply gives regulators the time to develop practical rules for
cement manufacturing facilities, and it's going to protect jobs in the
manufacturing industry, the construction industry, and all those areas,
these jobs which are otherwise going to be sent overseas.
Look, enough is enough. I mean, really, enough is enough. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please just support this. This
doesn't have to be a partisan thing. This is just for America. How are
we going to create and save American jobs so that the families who
every day wake up and say, I wonder if I can pay my bills next week, I
wonder if I can make my house payment, I wonder if I can make my car
payment, I wonder if I can send my kids to college.
Some of those people that have those pains and wonder that every day
work in the cement industry; and if these rules come into effect, that
horror that they are predicting may happen, that they'll lose their
job, will happen for 20,000 members and 20,000 citizens of the United
States. I call for an end to the madness. Let's be sane about this.
Let's finally, once and for all, save American jobs and then create
them and do what we have to do to get this economy back to work.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CLAY. I rise today in support of the Waxman amendment as well as
of the subsequent amendments to come, especially the Capps amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we in Congress need to be working to create jobs.
Instead of doing anything that would create jobs, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are making yet another assault on our public
health and the Clean Air Act in the form of H.R. 2681. We should pass
the President's American Jobs Act and other pieces of emergency jobs
legislation that create jobs as soon as possible.
As my friend the President said, ``Pass the bill. Pass the bill.''
Then we will create jobs.
Unemployed Americans need emergency jobs legislation now, not an
ideological attack on public health. Instead of focusing on jobs,
Republicans want to eliminate or delay reasonable Clean Air Act
regulations. This will jeopardize our public health and the clean air
that we all breathe--regardless of party affiliation. This clean air
regulation will reduce toxic pollutants produced by cement plants and
will prevent 2,500 premature deaths every year. It will also be very
cost-effective. This regulation provides up to $19 in public health
benefits for every dollar spent on reducing harmful air pollution.
I represent the State of Missouri, the St. Louis metropolitan region.
Less than 100 miles south of the St. Louis metropolitan area, we have
the largest cement kiln in the country. The people that I represent in
the St. Louis region suffer disproportionately from pollutants in the
atmosphere, pollutants that come from that nearby cement kiln, as well
as from other pollutants that are emitted through smokestacks in the
region. Children in my district suffer from a high incidence of asthma
as well as from other respiratory diseases.
Mr. Chairman, let me make it rather personal. Shortly after my
youngest son was born, he contracted asthma. It is no mere coincidence,
as we were so close to a cement kiln, that he, as well as thousands of
other children in the St. Louis region, suffer disproportionately from
asthma attacks and respiratory diseases that are unnecessary.
The Clean Air Act is a commonsense approach, a balance, in order to
allow for industry to do its work and create jobs and to also protect
those children and others who live in the St. Louis region who have to
breathe this air. The Clean Air Act is a commonsense approach, and it
does not deserve to be attacked.
I urge my colleagues to pass the Waxman amendment as well as the
Capps amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2681 and H.R.
2250.
Some in Congress want to use the jobs crisis as an excuse to roll
back clean air protections that will prevent 9,000 premature deaths
every year. Today, we are debating an unnecessary, wasteful bill that
only delays long overdue pollution-reducing regulations at the expense
of Americans' health. This is one of the Republicans' so-called ``jobs
bills,'' conducting redundant and costly studies that will do nothing
but add paper to landfills instead of creating jobs by upgrading cement
kilns so that they are no longer a threat to public health.
These studies have been done. Americans are still breathing mercury,
arsenic, and lead; but we have a means to clean it up. It's called the
Clean Air Act, and it was passed in 1963. It is known as one of the
most successful pieces of legislation in congressional history; yet the
Republican majority is trying to gut it over and over, bill after bill,
wasting time and energy that could be spent passing legislation that
would help create new jobs for Americans. Today's bill would cancel
requirements to clean up toxic air pollution, smog, and soot from
cement plants.
So, while big companies save a penny or two, American families will
face billions of dollars in increased health costs. Thousands more
people will go to hospitals with cases of bronchitis, heart attacks,
asthma attacks, and
[[Page H6587]]
thousands more will die prematurely. These pollutants are also
neurotoxins, causing major harm to the development of unborn babies,
infants, and children.
While the majority claims that eliminating this antipollution rule
for the cement industry will be good for business and the economy, the
EPA rule institutes new standards based on the best available
technology already in use in the industry. Let me repeat that. This
rule that the Republicans are trying to weaken is based on the best
available technology already in use voluntarily by a good portion of
the companies in the industry.
What does that mean? These antipollution standards are actually
achievable today, and companies are already using them and making a
profit.
So today's bill is just another in a long string of anti-environment/
anti-health attacks that look out for corporate interests over the best
interests of American families. We cannot afford to give polluters a
free pass to spew deadly, toxic air pollution that hurts our health and
puts our children at risk. No matter what anyone says, increased
pollution is not a sustainable path to job creation. Instead, we should
be saving lives, saving our environment, and investing in the clean-
tech jobs of the future.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the anti-environment/
anti-American health bill that is up for a vote tomorrow.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rush
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 5, add the following:
(c) Rule of Construction.--This section is intended to
supplement the provisions of, and shall not be construed to
supersede any requirement, limitation, or other provision of,
sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412,
7429).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, this atrocious bill, H.R. 2681, will make
permanent changes to the Clean Air Act by weakening health- and
science-based standards.
Cement kilns are a major source of mercury pollution as well as of
other toxic air pollution. However, until last year, these plants had
managed to avoid any sort of requirement to reduce these emissions.
Last year, the EPA finally finalized requirements for cement kilns to
use readily available technology to cut their pollution. This bill that
is before us today will now nullify the new health standards and direct
the EPA to go back to the drawing board.
Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues would like to frame this as a
debate between jobs and public health benefits, but I believe that this
is, indeed, a false choice.
{time} 1510
I am for jobs. The people in my district need jobs, but also we need
clean air in order to be alive to get to those jobs and to work those
jobs.
We know that since the inception of the Clean Air Act opponents of
this law have been exaggerating the costs of implementing the
regulations associated with the act while at the same time downplaying
the benefits that the new rules have brought.
H.R. 2681, the bill before us, does not take into account the
positive impacts on the economy and jobs that EPA regulations will have
by spurring additional research and development of cleaner technologies
and by making these same plants more efficient.
In a recent Washington Post article, the economist Steven Pearlstein
takes issue with the Republican analysis of regulatory costs in an
article aptly entitled, ``The magical world of voodoo `economists.' ''
Mr. Pearlstein correctly notes that these EPA rules spur the creation
of innovative new technologies that will not only control pollution but
also create new jobs to install the emissions-control equipment.
Supporters of this bill, Mr. Chairman, will also argue that it will
provide certainty to industry when, in fact, this bill as currently
drafted does precisely the opposite.
As written, section 5 of H.R. 2681 will raise legal uncertainty and
ambiguity by requiring the EPA to select the ``least burdensome''
regulatory alternative even if a stronger standard is feasible and
would provide more public health benefits.
However, under current law, plant owners already have the flexibility
to select an appropriate combination of controls to comply based on the
practices of the cleanest and most efficient plants that are operating
today.
The Clean Air Act requires that the EPA set toxic air pollution
standards for cement kilns based on numeric emission levels that
cleaner facilities are actually achieving right here, right now, today
in this world, the real world.
Pollution control technologies that meet the requirements are
commercially available and, in fact, many plants in this Nation have
already installed modern pollution control technology, even as you
argue for this bill and against my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, even for policymakers that are responsible for enacting
this legislation, the language in section 5 is ambiguous and vague.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues support this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment by my friend,
the gentleman from Illinois.
As I sit here and listen to the other side, they seem to be making
the argument that if you pass regulations, then you are going to create
jobs. It reminds me of what you hear in China and Russia, with more
government intervention, more government regulations. Our friends on
the other side of the aisle say that's creating new jobs. Yet on this
regulation, we have had hearing after hearing after hearing in which
people in the business come to Congress and say we don't know that we
can meet these standards in the timeframe necessary.
We heard today, one cement kiln in Oregon has already spent $20
million and still cannot meet the requirements of this regulation, and
they have said they are going to have to close down. We have heard
testimony that of 100 cement plants in America, 18 percent of them are
going to have to shut down. So how do you create jobs by issuing
regulations that make people close plants and lose jobs?
Now, I understand that we have a balance that we are trying to reach
here, and that's the purpose of this legislation. We want to protect
health. And, by the way, EPA in 1999 issued a cement regulation. And
between 1999 and 2005, mercury emissions decreased by 58 percent during
that time period. In 2006 they came out with a new regulation, and
certain environmental groups didn't like it; so they filed a lawsuit.
So as a result of that lawsuit, EPA had to come out with another
regulation.
So our legislation today is simply staying the most recent
regulation. As I said, they issued the regulation in 2006,
environmentalists filed lawsuits, and EPA had to come back and issue a
new regulation. Our legislation, because of testimony that is
indisputable, that plants are going to close and jobs will be lost,
simply asks EPA to go back and, within 15 months after the legislation
is passed, come out with a new regulation and give the industry 5 years
to comply. And if the administrator of the EPA wants to give them
longer than that to comply, she may. Of course we don't expect that she
would do that.
But we have heard about mercury today, for example. EPA in its own
estimates said that the Cement MACT
[[Page H6588]]
that they've issued would reduce mercury emissions by less than one-
fourth of 1 percent of global emissions. In fact, it is so small that
they did not even give a dollar value of benefits to the reduction of
mercury emission by their regulation.
So mercury, we know, is emitted naturally. It's also emitted
globally. In fact, the Department of Energy said that 11 million pounds
of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human
resources. So this regulation that we are trying to delay is not going
to have any impact on reducing mercury emissions by any significant
amount.
Now, we have heard a lot about why don't you pass the Obama jobs
bill. That's how you create jobs, instead of fighting EPA over
regulations. The United States Congress has an obligation and a
responsibility to question regulations that we believe are harming the
economy, and I notice in today's The Hill it said Senate Democrats
bucked Obama on his jobs plan.
So we are all committed to jobs, but I do not believe that issuing
more regulations creates jobs when we have business owners large and
small testify repeatedly that these regulations are going to lose jobs,
that they are going to have to shut down plants at a time when the
President wants to put more money into infrastructure needs in America,
which is fine. You need cement to do that. Our plants are going to be
closed, so we are going to be importing more cement from China, India,
and elsewhere.
So I would respectfully, though I have much admiration for my friend
from Illinois, oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1520
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that I want to ask the Members on
the other side.
How much time do you need? How much time are you asking the American
people to wait? How much longer do they have to wait for the EPA to
finally come up with rules and regulations that will regulate the
cement kiln industry, an industry that up until this date, 13 years
later--13 years later--still no regulation on the cement kiln industry?
Thirteen years. And then you have the audacity to come before this
Congress and come before the American people and say, after 13 years,
We want you to wait even longer. Another year and a half for the EPA to
act on this bill and another 5 years, another 5 years before this bill
will force them to comply. That's a total of 18 years, 19 years, 19\1/
2\ years. You want the American people to continue to breathe bad air,
to get diseases, cancer, lung diseases, another 19 years?
How dare you come before the American people and come before this
Congress and say you want more time. They've had 13 years, and most of
the industries in this Nation have already complied. This one industry,
the only one, the one you're trying to protect, it's the only one
that's excluded. And I say we can't wait any longer. The American
people can't wait any longer. Our children can't wait any longer. Our
senior citizens can't wait any longer. We can't wait any longer. We
cannot give them another 7 years.
Mr. WAXMAN. If I might reclaim my time, I think the gentleman is
absolutely right. The gentleman from Kentucky said that they had a
witness that said it's irrefutably true that they're going to lose all
of these jobs. That same witness urged our committee to repeal the
Clean Air Act, which seems like what the Republicans would like to do,
but they want to do it bit by bit.
This amendment before us by Mr. Rush addresses one of the most
egregious provisions of the bill. It changes the requirement. It
changes the standard. And it would set up a standard that would be
litigated for many, many more years. He talked about how long they have
been let off the hook. They'll wait many years after that because the
courts will have to decide it.
What his proposal is and this pending amendment is to say this bill
would be in addition to a standard that's already in place, and that
standard is to require the use of a maximum achievable control
technology to control the emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs,
and other toxic emissions. This is not a pie-in-the-sky technology.
It's requiring technology that's already being used at the present
time.
And so it would set up a floor for each toxic air pollutant that
reflects the emission levels that are actually being achieved in the
real world. The bill before us would strike that and replace it with a
requirement that would be the least burdensome on the industry, even if
it's the least effective in stopping the harm to children and others
from the mercury and other toxic pollutants.
So I rise in support of the Rush amendment. I urge my colleagues to
adopt it. It simply states that we're not replacing the requirement
that's in the law. A requirement would be added onto it, and it would
clarify that EPA should set numeric emission limits to reduce the air
toxic pollution from cement kilns unless such limits are not feasible
as described in the statute.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rush amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members that remarks
should be directed to the Chair and not addressed to other Members.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise in
support of the Rush amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill.
First of all, let us lament the fact that we are not considering on
the floor today a jobs bill. Now, I understand that my friend from
Kentucky believes this affects jobs. He may well be right. But it
doesn't affect jobs in the short term. In fact, as the gentleman knows,
one of these regulations that is the subject of legislation this week
has been stayed until next year, and the EPA is working very closely
with the cement industry and particular individuals in the cement
industry to try to work towards an implementation which they can in
fact comply with.
What is lamentable, however, and the gentleman from Kentucky
mentioned it, that somehow, and he pointed at the Senators, the
Senators don't agree with the President's jobs bill. In fact, the
Senators do agree with the jobs bill; they don't agree with how it's
paid for. And so they have a different pay-for. That, I suggest to you,
is the legislative process.
But what I tell my friend from Kentucky, what my friends on the
Democratic side in the Senate and the Democrats in the House both agree
on, we ought to be considering jobs legislation. We ought to have every
day on this floor, 5 days a week, legislation trying to get Americans
back to work; millions of Americans who can't find jobs, who can't
support their families, who psychologically are being damaged daily by
their inability to have a job. That's what we ought to be doing. We've
been in this Congress now for almost 10 months, 9 months plus, and we
haven't had a jobs bill on this floor.
The President of the United States came before the Congress and the
American people and said: I've got a bill, the Americans Jobs Act, and
it invests in creating jobs, invests in putting money in people's
pockets, and invests in making small businesses more able to expand
their base, expand jobs, and grow their businesses. It invests in
making sure that our schools are appropriate for our kids, and it
invests in making sure that 240,000 teachers stay on the job educating
our kids so when they get out of school they can get a job.
And yet, my friends, we're here talking about two industries vital to
America's well-being. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from
Kentucky, we need to have regulations and rules that are consistent
with Americans being able to grow their businesses. And the gentleman
from Kentucky said you're concerned about the air. I'm absolutely
convinced of that. I know you are. But I'm also convinced that the
gentleman from California, who's been such a
[[Page H6589]]
giant in this effort for clean air in America, was correct when he said
the witness said you ought to do away with the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Clean Air Act.
I have a granddaughter who has asthma. Now, luckily, we have an
intervention that she puffs on every morning and every evening that
helps her. But throughout the rest of the day, she puffs on the air in
our country, in our State and in our county. And Americans expect us as
their Representatives to try, to the extent we can, to make sure that
air is healthy and breathable and life-sustaining.
And so, yes, we have to make a balance. And that balance is between
making sure that our people are healthy and making sure also,
hopefully, that they're wealthy; not wealthy in the sense of being
rich, but wealthy in terms of having a job, having the self-respect of
a job and the ability to support themselves and their families.
We ought to be considering a jobs bill. I know you say these
regulatory bills are jobs bills, but I want to call your attention to
an article written by somebody who you may know, Mr. Bruce Bartlett. As
you know, Mr. Bruce Bartlett was in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush
administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp
and Ron Paul. He has never been on our press staff.
He says the focus on these regulations as if they are job creators or
job destroyers is inaccurate. That does not mean we shouldn't pay
attention to them; we should. But, ladies and gentlemen, we ought to
have on this floor jobs legislation, job creation legislation.
Bring to the floor the President's bill. If you don't like it, vote
against it. If you don't like it, amend it, but give the American
public, the American people the chance to have a jobs bill considered
on this floor to give them hope and opportunity.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind the Members that remarks in
debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the second
person.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, there's a pretty heated argument going on
here, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out here.
First off, the EPA is conducting a reconsideration of certain aspects
of the recent cement rules. However, EPA is only reconsidering a
certain aspect of these rules. EPA has stayed the effective date on
only one of the three rules proposed. They have stayed it only for a
short period of time, and environmentalists have sued the EPA for
staying the rule. None of the compliance dates for any of the three
recent cement sector rules have been changed, and it is not clear that
they will be. Only a legislative stay will provide regulatory certainty
for these rules.
President Obama has publicly stated to us that he learned that
``shovel-ready'' doesn't always mean ``shovel-ready,'' and that we are
still waiting for some of the projects from the original stimulus bill
to be created because ``shovel-ready'' doesn't mean ``shovel-ready.''
And, in fact, we have a few of these in my district.
But let me say this: What we're talking about here is something that
we've heard from the administration since the Obama administration has
been in charge, and that is it is a success if you have prevented the
loss of jobs. So you take credit for saying we didn't lose certain jobs
because of this action. Well, we have evidence here that says we are
going to lose certain jobs because of this action. In fact, we are told
that we could have the close-down of 20 percent of the cement factories
currently in existence within the next 2 years. That means shut down
and either moved overseas or just shut down and no longer in business
as a result of the regulations that are imposed by EPA. And that's
actually not only the industry, but even EPA acknowledges that that is
a possibility.
So what this amendment that is proposed here does is it says--and the
argument we heard was we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for the
position we're taking and that for 18 years we've done nothing. Well,
for 18 years, we've not exactly done nothing. In 1999, regulations were
imposed by the EPA which were submitted to the cement industry; and
they, by their own statement of EPA, they put those in place, and then
the regulations changed in '06 and they were in process; and many, as
we heard from our friend from Oregon, have put those regulations in
place to reduce emissions. In fact, we have reduced mercury emissions
by 56 percent by the regulations that have been put in place and the
implementation that the industry has done.
So it seems to be maybe another case of legislative negligence here
to make the accusation that we have done nothing for the 13 years that
have gone forward. Of course, that is just not true. They have done
something.
But now we've got the example of the plant that is in Oregon which
has met the '99 and met the '06 regulations, and now they're looking at
these regulations and the standard we have to meet, which is a 1
percent versus a 5 percent standard, .01 versus a .05 percent standard,
that the folks in the European Union have set as a clean air standard.
They are five times dirtier than what we are proposing, and they've
taken a look at it and said, we can't meet this standard within the
time frame that EPA has set forth for us.
So what we, by the underlying bill in this case, have said is EPA is
supposed to be a real-world operation that this is supposed to meet. It
is clearly--at least the industry feels in the timeframe set we can't
meet that real-world standard. Therefore, how about taking another look
for the next 15 months at these standards; and then when you come up
with something that can be met in the real world, give us 5 years to
implement, which is pretty reasonable if you look at the distance
between '99 and '06, between the time the regulations changed the last
time. It is right within the same time frame. But all of a sudden, we
have accelerated the implementation of these rules, and we've set
standards that we pretty well agree, everyone agrees, are not meetable.
I oppose this amendment and I support the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Capps
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal
cross-references, accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that according to the Environmental
Protection Agency, if the rules specified in section 3(b) are
in effect, then for every dollar in costs, the rules will
provide at least $7 to $19 in health benefits, due to the
avoidance each year of--
(1) 960 to 2,500 premature deaths;
(2) 1,500 nonfatal heart attacks;
(3) 1,000 emergency room visits;
(4) 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; and
(5) 130,000 days of missed work.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it's my sincere hope that we can all agree
to this amendment because it would simply add a finding to the
underlying bill of illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury
and air toxics cleanup standards for large cement plants. Opponents of
these clean-up standards argue that they cost too much. I don't happen
to agree with that assessment. But while we can debate the cost of the
standards, the health benefits are not in dispute, and that is why
those facts should be included as part of this bill; and that is what
this amendment makes in order.
Mr. Chairman, for decades, cement plants have been one of the largest
pollution emitters in the United States.
[[Page H6590]]
They are responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants in
the Nation, including mercury and other emissions that react in the air
to form soot and smog. But some cement plants are still failing to
comply with basic Clean Air Act protections that are 13 years overdue.
And that's why the EPA took final action last year to require these
large cement plants to cut their emissions and to simply follow the
law.
EPA science and health standards are based on the track record of the
existing plants that do the best job at limiting harmful emissions. In
fact, many plants have already installed modern pollution control
technology that meets these requirements. But instead of supporting the
EPA's lifesaving clean-up standards, the bill before us would delay
these standards by at least 4\1/2\ additional years. And it eliminates
any deadline by which cement plants must comply with EPA's safeguards.
This could mean thousands and thousands of additional pounds of mercury
and other toxic pollution released into our air each and every year.
These pollutants can cause cancer. They can impair brain development,
and they can harm children's ability to learn. They affect the kidneys,
the lungs and the nervous system, and they cause lung and heart disease
and premature deaths.
Now, you've heard that some large cement plants want a free pass from
cleaning up air pollution in the name of jobs. But indefinitely
delaying EPA's clean-up standards will not prevent job losses. What it
will do for certain is to put the lives and the health of millions of
Americans at risk. Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution
standards for cement plants over 1 year would lead to as many as 2,500
premature deaths, as many as 1,500 heart attacks, about 1,000 emergency
room visits, about 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 130,000 days
of work missed by people affected.
It's clear that the benefits of these pollution safeguards
significantly outweigh these costs. For every dollar the cement
industry spends to clean up one of its plants, Americans get up to $19
in health benefits back, and this fact is backed by peer-reviewed
science.
{time} 1540
What other investment results in this astonishing return for the
American people? That's why I'm offering this simple amendment today.
It would remind us of all the tremendous health benefits that EPA's
mercury and air toxic clean-up standards will achieve.
So I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment to
the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman
from California's amendment. In doing so, I would be the first to
recognize that she has been one of the real leaders in the Congress of
looking after the health of all of our constituents in the U.S. The
reason that I'm opposed to this particular amendment, however, is that
she asks us to adopt EPA's findings about health and cost benefits. She
wants that to be adopted as a finding in the legislation. In our
legislation, we don't have any findings that we're adopting at all. And
one of the reasons, among many, that we are opposed to putting the
health and cost benefits as a finding in the legislation is that we
have not had the ability to undertake any full analysis of EPA's
methodology in assessing those health benefits and costs. And we
furthermore do not have any idea what assumptions they used.
And another reason that I personally am opposed to their health and
cost benefits is that we know for a fact that they do not include as a
cost the health benefits lost by family members of those people who
lose jobs as a result of the regulation adopted by EPA.
So if you're going to look at the cost of health benefits that people
incur for the emissions that may be affected by the regulation, you
most certainly should examine and analyze the cost of the health
benefits to those people who lose jobs, lose their health insurance,
because there has been shown to be a direct correlation between
economic livelihood and health. So because of that, I would be very
much opposed to adopting this as a finding. We already know that EPA
has set out their cost benefits and analysis. That's available to the
public, so we're not really accomplishing any purpose by putting it in
this legislation.
I would also just like to make one additional comment going back to
my friend from Illinois about delay, delay, delay. And I would
reiterate what the gentleman from Texas said. EPA adopted the first
cement regulation in 1999. They came back in 2006 and adopted another
one. That would be in effect today except that the environmental groups
filed a lawsuit against it. And as we know, the pattern seems to be
environmental groups file the lawsuit, EPA enters a consent decree
agreeing, and then they pay the legal fees of the environmental groups.
So these regulations would have been in effect a long time ago if that
lawsuit had not been filed.
So all we're saying is the industry and EPA and others had agreed to
those second regulations, but once the lawsuit was filed, the
regulations became so stringent that the testimony has shown that many
of these plants simply cannot meet those standards.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask Members to
oppose the Capps amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Capps amendment,
and I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it's been 274 days since the Republicans
took over the House. What do we have to show for it? Well, first up,
they've introduced a budget that would end Medicare as we know it. Then
the Republican-led House voted to take money away from NPR. Next up,
they voted to make it easier to outsource jobs. And just last week,
they even voted to cut programs supporting green jobs. Quite a record:
not one single job-creation bill. So what's on deck for today? A bill
that would allow more toxic pollutants in the air that we breathe.
I'm certain, Mr. Chairman, that if we went outside and asked 100
people, would you prefer dirtier, more toxic air, we are going to get
100 ``noes.'' So why are we taking this up today? It's not because
working families are clamoring for more toxins in their homes, at the
workplace, or in the parks. This bill is a handout to the polluters of
America. It says that their profits are more important than the health
of our Nation. More asthma? Who cares. We've got to make a profit.
Well, let's admit what this underlying bill is really about. It's one
more break for Big Business at the expense of working families and our
communities.
The American people have had enough, Mr. Chairman. Let's stand up for
public health. Let's stand up for common sense. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this dangerous and reckless legislation, and I urge the
Republicans to get behind President Obama's jobs bill and put America
back to work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment because
I'd like to make the point that Americans watching this debate, Mr.
Chairman, should not be fooled into believing that there is some false
choice between being able to breathe and having a job. This is just a
false choice. It's a trick bag, and it's unfair to make this argument
to the American people.
The fact is we can breathe and we can avoid asthma and mercury
poisoning and have a job. You don't have to have one or the other. And
the fact is, Mr. Chairman, is that the folks who argue against
regulations that protect our health and sometimes impose a reasonable
cost on industry, these folks have never liked regulations that ask
business to do their fair share.
This is not a new thing. This is not unique to the cement industry.
This is an ongoing ideological debate which has been going on for a
long time. But thankfully, Americans recognized that
[[Page H6591]]
we needed to breathe and work. So we passed regulations. We passed and
enacted the EPA. And we brought laws and regulations into being that
would protect our health. But now we're being asked to say, Your health
or a job? And this is being done in the middle of one of the most
dramatic recessions since the Great Depression.
The fact is, this claim that if you get rid of all the regulations
these corporations are just going to spring forward and start hiring
people is untrue. There's no evidence of it. I'd love to see some proof
of this claim. It's not the case. And you can't tell me that if some
self-interested business person comes to a hearing and says, I would
hire if we could get rid of regulations, I don't buy that. I want to
see some real evidence. But there is none. That's why you don't see it.
The fact is is that if you want to put people back to work today,
we've got to pass the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be on
the floor talking about the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to
be talking about the infrastructure bank bill. We need to be getting
Americans back to work because the real reason that our economy is
dragging along and unemployment is so high is because our government is
not putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure, by
refurbishing our school system, by putting the necessary investments
into the 21st century. That's what we need to be doing, not just
relieving industry of the responsibility to respect our environment and
our lungs.
So I just want to say, and to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I hope
the folks watching C-SPAN don't fall for the okeydoke, and be very,
very careful in listening to this debate, and don't allow themselves to
be fooled into thinking that they can either have a job or they can
have lungs, but they can't have both.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Capps
amendment.
First let me say that the underlying concept behind the Capps
amendment is fine. We are all concerned about the health of people.
Everybody's using examples of asthma. I have asthma, okay; that's why
I sound like this. All right. So I understand asthma. But I want to
point out some things about this that concern me.
First and foremost, we have scientific information. And what the
chairman of the subcommittee said is that we don't know exactly upon
what methodology the EPA bases its analysis of the health care
incidents that occurred from this industry.
{time} 1550
There probably are health care incidents. The question is, what's the
analysis? And I would start with scientific evidence that has appeared
here today that somewhere between 100 and 85 percent of the mercury
pollution that's found from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River
comes from foreign sources.
My first question would be, in their analysis, did they analyze that
relative to the mercury--infant child brain damage relative to the
somewhere between 100 and 85 percent of the mercury--that comes from
foreign sources, which we have no control over? And we could shut all
our concrete plants down, which we may do, and the result would be, I
don't know, somewhere between 15 percent better and no better, at least
west of the Mississippi. So did they analyze it that way accordingly?
And then, therefore, if they said that they did it that way, is the
number they're talking about relative to the 15 percent or the 0
percent that these plants are creating?
I don't know the answer to that question. But that's the reason I
think it would be an irregular thing for this Congress to do to adopt
the findings of the EPA or other health organizations without us
knowing what actual facts they used in their analysis of doing this.
And I would think that would require a pretty hard and tough inquiry,
not that I'm saying there's not health care issues with anything that
goes in the air. Certainly, there's got to be.
Then another question we hear today is, why don't you guys quit
talking--you're not talking about creating any jobs. No, we're talking
about the same argument that the administration's been using for the
entire length of the administration. We're talking about saving
American jobs, because there's no evidence to the contrary that if you
close down a plant and it employs 15 to 30 workers, you lose 15 to 30
jobs, not 15 to 30 corporations, 15 to 30 American worker jobs.
If you close 20 percent of the plants, and there's approximately 100
in the country, then you're going to have 20 times somewhere between 15
and 20 jobs, whatever the number is. And these are $65,000 to $85,000-
a-year jobs by labor. But we're going to lose those jobs. And this bill
that this amendment is seeking to be attached too, its purpose is to
save those people's jobs, those American laborers' jobs. I think it's
something we should think about.
The American Jobs Act, if it can get the support in the Senate--to my
knowledge, it has not yet been dropped in the House, but I'm sure it
will be sometime; someone will step up and do it.
And then the question becomes, what about the President's public
statement that shovel-ready doesn't mean shovel-ready?
Well, if you're going to have to bring in a part, a major part of
fixing highways and schools, which is concrete, if you're going to have
to bring in the element of concrete, because Portland cement, as my
colleague has corrected my Texas language, is an integral portion of
that, if that has to be brought in from China, don't you think that
also is going to slow down again the President's complaint that shovel-
ready doesn't always mean shovel-ready? I think it is.
And, in fact, do we have any quality assurance that when we build
that bridge across the Mississippi River, like we did in Minnesota,
that the cement that we put into that bridge is of an adequate quality
that we feel safe driving over? I don't know, but that's going to be
our option if our cement industry goes overseas.
So at some point in time we have to ask ourselves, we're losing jobs
when they close plants. If it's so onerous that they have to move, then
why not take time to study and come up with something that actually
works in the real world, as this EPA rule is supposed to work?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the Capps amendment.
The Capps amendment doesn't change the bill. It allows the bill to go
into effect, but the amendment would simply add the health benefits
findings in the legislation. It doesn't change what the bill does, but
it does provide crucial context for the bill's provisions.
Now, I should point out that the bill, itself, nullifies the cement
kiln rules and forces EPA to start all over again. In doing so, the
bill nullifies all of these health benefits such as fewer asthma
attacks, avoided premature deaths, reduced exposure to toxic pollution.
In its place the bill offers no guarantee that any new rules will have
to achieve the same level of public health protection. So the Capps
amendment ensures that we have an honest accounting of the health
benefits that the Republican leadership says we should erase because
they just aren't worth it.
Well, I would urge that we vote for the Capps amendment because this
finding is important for Members to have so that they understand
they're voting with their eyes wide open to eliminate those very health
benefits.
I just want to respond to this business about China. It's like we're
going to close down cement plants and bring it all into the United
States from China. Well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. That's
just not credible. U.S. clinker output has dropped nearly 50 percent
since 2006, but the imports have declined by more than 80 percent. How
could that be?
Well, there's a lack of demand. That's the reason we have a problem.
The domestic cement industry is regional in nature. According to the
Portland Cement Association, the cost of shipping cement prohibits
profitable distribution over long distances. As a
[[Page H6592]]
result, customers traditionally purchase cement from local sources. If
we're not producing more cement, it's not because we're bringing it in
from China. It's because the demand is not there.
Now, the findings that the Capps amendment would put into place are
based on the EPA's economic analysis that has to follow criteria set by
the Office of Management and Budget. So they're based on peer-reviewed
studies. They're transparent. They're subject to public comment.
They're reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry studies meet none of these criteria. Members can get up
here and say numbers of jobs that will be lost, but we don't know where
those numbers have come from. We haven't seen any peer-reviewed
studies.
In 40 years of experience in implementing the Clean Air Act, we've
heard these predictions of disaster time after time, and yet the
economy has continued to grow. Chicken Little has nothing on industry
when it comes to requirements to clean up pollution.
So when we hear that we can't protect our children from toxic
pollution, from brain damage, from cancers because plants will close
down, I would urge my colleagues not to believe it. I don't think we
have to make that stark choice. And if you're going to make that stark
choice, don't oppose the findings being in the bill because you don't
like those findings, you don't want to face those findings. I think we
ought to have them in the bill because that's exactly what we're going
to do.
So if you're going to support this bill, then support it with the
understanding that those public health benefits will be lost.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to
correct--maybe you said it wrong; maybe I said it wrong. If I did, I
apologize. I'm not saying Chinese industry will move to the United
States. I'm saying that if they close down plants in the United States,
which the industry has given us a percentage of at least 20 percent of
the plants will close--and we know the construction of a new plant in
Alabama will stop until the stay--then I'm saying that then we would
have to supplement that by overseas shipments from the largest producer
of cement in the world, China.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I did understand you to say that, and
I just can't think of that as a credible statement because we've
already had a drop of nearly 50 percent since 2006 of cement in the
United States. That didn't mean we brought in more from China. In fact,
our demand, our imports from anywhere else declined by more than 80
percent.
{time} 1600
So it's not a question of we're going to have to come from China; we
just don't have the demand. I think we should take the cement industry
at their word, when the Portland Cement Association tells us the cost
of shipping cement prohibits profitable distribution over long
distances. We can continue with our own industry and still meet these
health-based standards.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pretty
brief in saying this.
It seems like we've often taken this idea of jobs and everything
else, and, again, in Washington D.C., we have two epic competing
viewpoints right now: One says that we need jobs; the other says we
need jobs. One says we need jobs through more government spending, more
government interaction, more stimulus. In fact, I had a colleague once
tell me that the problem with the stimulus is it wasn't large enough.
Well, I guess stimulus 2 that's being proposed is actually half as
large.
There's different competing things on how to create jobs, but the one
thing we can all agree on is the Environmental Protection Agency needs
to protect the environment and it needs to do so at prevention of
killing and stopping job creation or putting people out of work.
Again, when we talk about this whole issue, I think the thing that
needs to be very obvious here is we need cement, obviously, to build
infrastructure. The industry is saying, You're going to cost us 18 out
of 100 plants and you're going to cost 20,000 jobs. Now, we can take
issue with that. I just heard my colleague say that we have to take the
cement industry at their word. I agree. This is what's being said:
20,000 jobs.
So the question is, now, do we just go ahead and say, Well, let's not
give any additional time to figure out how to comply with these
regulations so those jobs aren't lost; let's just take the arbitrary
number and move forward? All we're trying to do is buy a little more
time to allow the industry to protect those 20,000 people.
Imagine right now--and it's not just a number. Imagine there are
20,000 people out there in the United States right now that are going
about their business. It's 4 o'clock on the east coast, so some are
maybe getting off of work, or maybe they're going to a second shift,
and they have no idea that this faceless 20,000 number is actually
them. They are that 20,000 number right now. They don't realize it.
They've got the little ``20,000'' above their head. They say, I hope my
job's safe; but no, it's them. Because if these rules are allowed to go
into effect haphazardly like this, they will be out of work.
Again, we have two competing philosophies here, and we can talk about
those philosophies, but ultimately the first thing we have to do is
quit killing jobs. It's the Environmental Protection Agency. It's not
the Employment Prevention Agency or anything along that line.
We've got a lot of work to do. This is a great bill, and I would urge
my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal
cross-references, accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient
air from cement kilns addressed by the rules listed in
section 2(b) of this Act is a potent neurotoxin that can
damage the development of an infant's brain.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My amendment is simple. It would include in the findings the
scientific fact that mercury released into the ambient air from cement
kilns is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an
infant's brain.
Let me just read the finding from my amendment. It says, ``The
Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from cement
kilns addressed in this act is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the
development of an infant's brain.''
That is just fact. This is not up for debate. That is just a fact and
should be acknowledged in the legislation, that mercury is one of the
most harmful toxins in our environment. Forty-eight tons of mercury is
pumped into our air each year, threatening one in six women nationwide
with dangerous levels of mercury exposure. Pregnant women, infants, and
young children are most vulnerable to mercury poisoning, which harms a
developing child's ability to walk, talk, read, write, and comprehend.
Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk to even low-
level mercury exposure that causes adverse health effects. Up to 10
percent of U.S. women of childbearing age are estimated to have mercury
levels high
[[Page H6593]]
enough to put their developing children at increased risk for cognitive
problems.
Cement kilns are among the largest sources of airborne mercury
pollution in the United States, and there is existing technology right
now that would prevent that. When mercury is pumped into our air, very
often it ends up in bodies of water and is ingested by fish. Mercury-
contaminated fish are found in almost every American body of water, and
eating contaminated fish is the dominant cause of mercury exposure in
people.
This is a serious problem in my home State of Illinois. In April,
Environment Illinois issued a report showing that the amount of mercury
in the average sport fish tested in 36 counties exceeds the EPA safe
limit for regular consumption. Due to this contamination, the Illinois
Department of Public Health warns women and children to limit their
consumption of fish.
Illinois is not unlike other States. According to the EPA, nearly
every fish nationwide contains mercury. The EPA actually advises women
who are pregnant or who may become pregnant to eat no more than 12
ounces of any fish per week, and to eat limited or no amounts of fish
that have high mercury content. That advisory has also been issued for
infants and children. That's because we know beyond any scientific
doubt that mercury inhibits brain development in the fetal and early
childhood development stages. EPA analysis and peer-reviewed studies
show that mercury leads to increased incidence of neurological
disorders, increased incidence of learning disabilities, and increased
incidence in developmental delay.
The EPA cement plant standards would reduce this major threat without
undue burden to industry. The standards will lower the mercury exposure
of more than 100,000 women of childbearing age in Illinois whose blood
mercury levels exceed the recommended limit. When fully implemented,
EPA estimates that mercury emissions from cement kilns will be reduced
by 92 percent. The legislation we consider today will block EPA's
efforts. It will send EPA back to the drawing board with new untested
and legally vulnerable guidance for setting air pollution standards.
My colleagues across the aisle talk a lot about not wanting to burden
the next generation with debt. Where is their concern with burdening
the next generation with reduced brain capacity? H.R. 2681 patently
ignores the scientifically proven fact that mercury exposure inhibits
brain development, especially in infants. If we are prepared to pass
legislation that would jeopardize the health of children by increasing
mercury emissions, we should be willing to acknowledge the scientific
fact that EPA inaction poses a serious health risk.
The previous speaker, my colleague from Illinois who spoke, said we
have different philosophies. I hope not. I hope we agree that it is a
rightful function of government to say that we don't want to overburden
industry but we do want to say that our job is to protect the health
and safety of the people of the United States, and mercury is a danger
that is proven.
I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
{time} 1610
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady from Illinois is certainly a valuable
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is an effective
advocate for her positions, but her amendment would require a finding
that mercury emitted from the cement kiln is a neurotoxin.
I would first point out that EPA, itself, in its reports, has
indicated that the regulation of domestic mercury, because of the Clean
Air Act, has already decreased by 58 percent. It has also estimated
that the Cement MACT that it issued, which is at issue in this
legislation, would reduce global emissions of mercury by less than one-
fourth of 1 percent. It also said that the Department of Energy
estimated that the global emissions of mercury amount to about 11
million pounds.
So the amount of mercury that we're talking about in this cement
regulation is so minute that the EPA, itself, did not even assign a
dollar value to the benefit because it was so, in its opinion,
inconsequential.
Obviously, Congress is not a scientific body. We know that mercury is
dangerous, but when mercury comes out of a cement kiln, it comes out as
elemental mercury. It then must fall into water, where organisms
convert it to methylmercury. A fish has to take in the methylmercury,
and that fish has to be cooked. Then someone has to eat it for it to be
damaging to that person.
So these are very scientific assumptions. As I said, Congress is not
a scientific body. The scientific understanding of mercury is certainly
far more complicated than is reflected in this finding that asks to be
included in the bill. This statement simply assigns the responsibility
for specific health impacts to specific sources when there are multiple
sources of mercury in the environment, including natural resources.
There is some mercury in the air as a result of cement kilns, but there
is an awful lot in there which is natural, and then there is an awful
lot that comes from sources outside the U.S.
We do not believe that the EPA can quantify any health benefit from
reducing emissions of mercury from these sources, because they've said
that themselves. Because of that, I would oppose putting into a finding
this particular statement. I might also say to the gentlelady from
Illinois that we don't have any findings in this legislation at all, so
I would respectfully request that the Members oppose this particular
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and my colleagues, this amendment simply
states the finding of the science.
It simply says that Congress finds that mercury released into the
ambient air from cement kilns, addressed by these rules listed in 2(b)
of this act, is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of
infants' brains.
That's the finding. It's a scientific finding.
As I heard the argument of the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman
of the subcommittee, he said it depends on how much you've ingested and
all that, but nobody's talking about that. This is just a finding of
the science. He also indicated there is no finding in this bill. So
what? This is an amendment to the bill.
EPA didn't put a dollar figure on the potential health benefits from
reducing the emissions of mercury, carcinogens, and other toxic
pollutants.
It's not that there won't be any benefits. EPA simply couldn't
produce a well-supported dollar value estimate of those benefits given
the time and methodological constraints. So I don't see how anybody can
oppose this amendment, because it simply states a scientific fact. Let
me be very concrete about it. This is a simple statement of a
scientific fact. If Congress wants to go on record, as we already have
in other legislation, that we don't believe in science, you can do it,
but it doesn't wish the scientific finding away.
Mercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's
consumption of mercury-tainted fish and shellfish, can adversely affect
the developing brain and nervous system.
You can't wish that away. You can't vote it down and say that it's
not true.
Babies that were exposed to mercury in utero can suffer long-term
problems with cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine
motor and visual spatial skills.
You can't say that's not true. That's what the scientists have
concluded.
In 1990, we adopted the Clean Air Act. We asked that these cement
kilns and other polluters reduce those pollutants because they are
toxic air pollutants. The Schakowsky amendment says there is a
scientific basis for this law. She repeats the science. Republicans can
amend the Clean Air Act and say we're not going to do anything about
it, but they cannot amend the laws of nature. They cannot change the
scientific reality.
I must also point out with this bill that, not only are Republicans
urging
[[Page H6594]]
that we deny the scientific reality, but they want to make sure we
don't do anything about that scientific reality. The Schakowsky
amendment doesn't change that. It only says that we ought to face the
scientific fact, as I indicated, which is the overwhelming scientific
consensus. I don't know anybody who's against this scientific
consensus. If we vote against her amendment, we're denying the
scientific fact that mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the
development of an infant's brain. I don't see how anybody could vote
against that.
Even if you want to postpone the rules, even if you want to give the
EPA more time and make the industry have to avoid coming into
compliance for 10, 16, 18, 20 years, whatever it may be, it's
irrefutable. This is the reason we want these rules in place.
Otherwise, the Republicans ought to say, ``We don't want the rules in
place,'' because there's no reason to have these rules. If that's what
they believe, then they can vote against the Schakowsky amendment, but
it doesn't make any sense.
I don't know if I have any remaining time, but I would be happy to
yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) if she wants to
say anything more.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. I'll not even take that 30 seconds.
This is a question of voting on the scientific conclusion, so I urge
my colleagues to vote for the Schakowsky amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. I rise with strong reservations about this amendment, but I
also want to talk about the underlying legislation.
I think, really, what we have to be focused on here is jobs. Again,
as I stated earlier during floor debate, I represent the largest
cement-producing district in America. We have five cement plants in my
district. Those five cement plants produce more cement than did the 50
plants that preceded them. We used to have 50 plants in my district,
and now those five plants that are remaining produce more than the 50.
The point is that the industry has become much more productive in many
respects, including being environmentally more productive and
sensitive.
That said, these new rules, these three rules in particular, will
restrict the industry's ability to remain competitive with foreign
producers. These foreign imports currently make up more than 20 percent
of the total U.S. cement sales. If these three rules are implemented,
we will see less domestic cement production.
To add insult to injury with respect to what the EPA is doing with
their regulatory assault on the cement industry as well as on the coal
industry, what they are doing here is just unfair to basic industry--to
manufacturing, to industrial America. When you look at the stimulus law
that was enacted a couple of years ago, look at what happened. Our
stimulus dollars, Federal dollars, are being used to finance a cement
importation terminal in New York City for the purpose of bringing in
Peruvian cement.
{time} 1620
No, I am not making that up; that's real. And I've talked about this
issue before on the House floor. Because this regulatory assault on
domestic cement and our own Federal Government, another arm of the
Federal Government, trying to basically subsidize the importation of
foreign cement, it's going to have a very negative impact on my
congressional district, which is, again, the largest cement producing
district in America.
And it's been stated before these NESHAP rules just cobble together a
range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants
without determining if it is possible for any single cement company to
comply with all these standards simultaneously.
There are two other rules, the CISWI rule and the nonhazardous solid
waste rule, that will deal with issues like tires.
And many modern cement plants here, as well as in Europe, use
alternative fuel sources with high Btu content. They use tires. They
use waste plastics ground up. Many of these materials and waste would
be otherwise, ordinarily, landfill. We burn them in cement kilns with a
high Btu content, and that replaces other fuels like coal.
So this is very important. It's a great reuse of these materials. If
we leave those unsightly tire piles out and about, what will happen is
we'll see another situation like we saw in Philadelphia years ago where
the tire pile ignited and melted the I-95 bridge in Philadelphia.
That's when many people started to realize that there was a better use
for tires than letting them sit in these piles under interstate
freeways and use them in cement kilns. It makes great sense, and these
new rules will imperil our ability to use those types of waste fuel
oils, waste tires and ground-up plastics. So this is something I think
we really have to focus on as we deal with this issue.
Finally, I wanted to mention a couple of other things about what's
occurring here. By scrapping these three existing rules and requiring
the EPA administrator to develop and propose more realistic and
achievable regulations within 15 months, we are going to provide more
time for the industry to prepare for full implementation and
compliance.
We are going to require that the EPA administrator establish
compliance dates and requirements after considering compliance costs,
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, energy requirements,
the feasibility of implementation, the availability of equipment
suppliers and labor, and the potential net employment impacts. That
means jobs.
As has been pointed out at various points here, the industry today
employs about 17,000 Americans, and we have lost more than 4,000 jobs
in the cement industry since 2008. As I pointed out, in a district like
mine where we have five cement plants that are operating, and operating
effectively--and not only the cement plants, but we also have ancillary
industries, like the FLSmidth Company, formerly the Fuller Company,
where they actually make cement equipment and build cement plants.
These types of jobs are good-paying jobs, are essential to America's
industrial base, to our basic industry.
We have to stop this regulatory assault on these types of
manufacturing jobs. We can make things in America if our government
will just allow us.
So, once again, I want to express my concerns regarding the
underlying amendment but, at the same time, expressing my strong and
unreserved support for the underlying legislation, which is much
overdue.
Again, cement is a critical industry to our Nation, and it's time
that we adopt this very important Cement MACT legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the two bills
before the House, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681.
There is an old saying, ``The people have spoken.'' The people spoke
clearly back in 1990. They said, We want cleaner air and healthier
communities. So President George H.W. Bush proposed changes to
strengthen the Clean Air Act.
The legislation to carry out these changes was introduced by a
coalition of 22 Senators from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and
Republicans. Then, after an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 401-25 in
the House and 89-10 in the Senate, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
were signed into law. That was 21 years ago that these updates to the
Clean Air Act were enacted. The law required acid rain, urban air
pollution, and toxic air emissions to be combated by reducing the
release of 189 poisonous pollutants. The deadline for implementing
these changes was the year 2000. Eleven years later, the people of
Hawaii and the United States are asking for the certainty that they
were promised, the certainty that by 2000 their air, our air, would be
on the path to being cleaner.
We have heard the arguments against these regulations before: They
are too expensive; they will kill jobs. We have heard the same
arguments for years.
[[Page H6595]]
However, since the passage of the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, our
Nation's economy has grown 200 percent.
When acid rain regulations were proposed after the 1990 law was
enacted, industry claimed that it would cost $7.5 billion to comply and
tens of thousands of jobs. But we know that that was not what happened.
Instead, our economy added 21 million jobs and had the longest-running
expansion in our Nation's history.
Recent surveys also show the biggest challenge facing small
businesses today isn't regulation. The biggest challenge is that
consumer demand for products and services is low.
We all agree that we need to help our economy and create more jobs,
but we shouldn't be doing that at the expense of the health of our
communities and our families. That is not the way to create jobs.
Instead, it's time to give the American people the certainty that the
air that we breathe won't contribute to asthma or heart attacks or
birth defects; and it's time to give the American people the certainty
that when they speak, as they did in 1990, their government will carry
out their will.
So enough is enough. The deadlines are passed; the issues have been
studied; the rules have been litigated and, in some cases, relitigated.
Now is the time for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish the
job it was given by Congress and finish these rules, and let's get to
work on legislation to create jobs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both of these bills. The
American people want jobs legislation now, not ideological attacks on
the Clean Air Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 6. DETERMINATION; AUTHORIZATION.
Not later 10 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Comptroller General of
the United States, and the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, shall make a determination regarding whether
this Act authorizes the appropriation of funds to implement
this Act and, if so, whether this Act reduces an existing
authorization of appropriations by an offsetting amount. The
provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective if it is
determined that this Act authorizes the appropriation of
funds without an offsetting reduction in an existing
authorization of appropriations.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I oppose this bill on substantive grounds
because it nullifies EPA's rules to cut toxic pollution from cement
kilns and threatens EPA's ability to reissue rules that are protective
of public health.
And we certainly had an exhaustive discussion of why we think this is
not a good bill, but this bill has another problem: It does not comply
with the Republican leadership's policy for discretionary spending.
When Congress organized this year, the majority leader announced that
the House would be following a discretionary CutGo rule. This requires
that when a bill authorizes discretionary funding, that funding is
explicitly limited to a specific amount. The protocols also require
that the specific amount be offset by a reduction in an existing
authorization.
This rule was embodied in a document entitled, ``Legislative
Protocols for the 112th Congress.'' The majority leader announced that
compliance with these protocols is necessary for legislation to be
complied with before the bill would be scheduled for floor
consideration.
Well, this bill fails to meet these protocols on two counts:
First, the bill does not include a specific authorization for EPA to
complete the rulemaking required by the bill. After all, EPA finalized
the cement rulemaking more than a year ago. EPA will have to start from
scratch, according to this bill, and follow a whole new approach for
setting emission standards. That's going to cost money.
{time} 1630
Second, the bill does not offset the new spending with cuts in an
existing authorization. In addition to violating the protocols of the
majority leader, the bill violates the policies of the Energy and
Commerce Committee. Chairman Upton said the committee would be
following a discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a letter in June to
clarify this CutGo policy with regard to bills pending before our
committee, which said: If CBO determines that any of these bills will
have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we will offset the
newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.
Well, CBO has determined that H.R. 2681 does, in fact, authorize new
discretionary spending. CBO determined that this bill will have a
significant impact on the Federal budget because it requires EPA to
spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. CBO
estimates that implementing this bill would cost EPA $1 million over a
5-year period.
Now, my Republican colleagues claim that this bill doesn't trigger
the CutGo requirement. They say that EPA can use existing funds to
complete the work mandated by the bill, but that's not how the
appropriations law works. Not including an authorization in H.R. 2681
does not have the effect of forcing the executive branch to implement
the legislation with existing resources. To the contrary, it has the
effect of creating an implicit authorization of ``such sums as may be
necessary.'' Anyone familiar with Federal appropriations law knows this
and the Government Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget
Office can confirm it.
My amendment would simply ask a third party to settle the debate. It
requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with EPA's Chief Financial Officer, the Comptroller
General of GAO, and CBO, to determine whether this bill authorizes the
appropriation of funds to implement its provisions and, if so, whether
this bill reduces an existing authorization of appropriations by an
offsetting amount.
If it is determined that this act authorizes the appropriation of
funds without an offsetting reduction, the provisions in the act will
be nullified. This is a truth-in-advertising amendment. With great
fanfare, the Republicans announced they were so serious about
addressing the Federal deficit that they would live by a new protocol
on discretionary CutGo.
This amendment is an opportunity for the Republicans to live by their
word. If we adopt this amendment and the legislation complies with
discretionary CutGo, then the amendment will have no effect. If, on the
other hand, this legislation fails to comply, as the Congressional
Budget Office indicates, and has a significant impact on the Federal
budget, then my amendment will ensure that the offending provisions do
not go into effect.
I urge all Members to support this amendment. Let's hold the
Republican leadership to their word.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. All of us are very much concerned about excessive
spending by the Federal Government. We know we have a serious debt, we
have a serious deficit, and all of us are determined to bring that in
line and to solve that problem.
Now, the gentleman from California's amendment is trying to use the
so-called CutGo rule as a means to invalidate this legislation. In our
legislation, we do not authorize the appropriation of any additional
funds. We do not create any new programs in this legislation.
[[Page H6596]]
And I might say that each year EPA receives an appropriation for its
activities, and we know that more than any other agency in the Federal
Government, EPA is sued more than almost any other agency. At any one
time, they have 400 or 500 lawsuits going. As a result of many of those
lawsuits, they have to go back and they have to re-look at rules and so
forth; and there's never any additional money appropriated to them for
that purpose. So what we're doing in this legislation is no different
than what they deal with at EPA every year.
Now, CBO did come forth and say that over a 5-year period, because
they would have to re-look at these rules and issue new rules and so
forth, there would be maybe a million dollars in additional cost. But
that's not any different than what EPA goes through every year, as I
said, because of lawsuits that are filed.
Our position is we do not authorize additional money in this
legislation. We do not create a new program in this legislation; and,
therefore, the CutGo rules are not applicable. And it is the decision
of the House leadership to determine if that is the case or not, and
they've determined that is not the case. So for those reasons, I would
oppose the gentleman's amendment and would urge all Members to oppose
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that if the rules specified in section
3(b) remain in effect, they are expected to reduce the amount
of mercury that deposits to land and water by up to--
(1) 30 percent in some areas of the western United States;
and
(2) 17 percent in some areas of the eastern United States.
Page 5, line 11, strike ``section 2'' and insert ``section
3''.
Page 6, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)(1)'' and insert
``section 3(a)(1)''.
Page 7, line 8, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert
``section 3(a)''.
Page 7, lines 9 and 10, strike ``section 2(b)(2)'' and
insert ``section 3(b)(2)''.
Page 8, line 3, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert
``section 3(a)''.
Page 8, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert
``section 3(a)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment was going to be offered by
Mr. Markey, and he strongly supports it, and I want to offer it in his
place.
Power plants, cement kilns, incinerators, manufacturing facilities,
and other industrial sources release toxic mercury into the air. These
emissions travel through the atmosphere and eventually deposit to land
or water. Once deposited, the mercury can build up in fish, shellfish,
and animals that eat fish. Consumption of fish and shellfish is the
main route of mercury exposure to humans.
EPA and FDA have warned women who are pregnant, of childbearing age,
or nursing that they should limit their consumption of certain types of
fish and avoid others entirely due to mercury contamination.
EPA's cement kiln rules are designed to cut emissions of mercury as
well as other hazardous air pollutants. EPA estimates that the rules
will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92
percent, compared with projected levels.
EPA looked at how these reductions would affect the emissions that
are deposited to land or water. EPA estimated that the cement rules
would reduce mercury deposition by up to 30 percent in the West and up
to 17 percent in the East by 2013. The agency's modeling indicates that
the mercury deposition reductions would be the greatest nearest the
cement kilns.
This amendment adds a simple finding to the bill, stating that EPA's
cement kiln rules are expected to reduce mercury deposition in the
eastern and western United States. This amendment does not change the
substance of the bill. The bill still nullifies EPA's cement rules,
which have been in place for a year. The amendment simply adds
important context for this nullification. By nullifying the cement
rules, this bill erases the reductions in mercury deposition that the
rules would achieve.
This debate has shown us how we need this context. The bill's
supporters have claimed that 99 percent of mercury is natural; and,
thus, they imply, we don't need to worry about it. I have no idea where
they get that figure. It wasn't from the EPA. But if that's why they're
supporting this bill, their support isn't based on the facts.
The amendment sets the record straight. It makes it clear to all
Members that the cement rules will have a real and significant impact
on mercury deposition. These effects will be the largest, of course,
closest to the plants that will have to clean up their pollution.
{time} 1640
But before we vote to throw out rules that have been in the works for
over a decade, before we vote to leave communities exposed to toxic air
pollution for years or decades more, let's at least recognize what we
are throwing away. And what we'd be throwing away is this particular
finding that is so important.
I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Chair, Congress should not adopt as its own
specific findings made by EPA in the context of these rulemakings.
Congress has not undertaken a full analysis of the EPA's methodology in
assessing these reductions. EPA's estimates encompass multiple
assumptions that may or may not be true and which deserve further
scrutiny.
EPA estimates that the Cement MACT will reduce mercury emissions by
16,400 pounds per year, an amount that is only 0.15 percent of global
emissions. Mercury is emitted naturally and also globally. The
Department of Energy estimates that 5,500 tons, or 11 million pounds,
of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human
sources. Emissions from these sources are modest when considered
relative to natural and foreign emissions.
These projections are complex. Where these estimates have not been
subject to rigorous scrutiny, it would be irresponsible for Congress to
simply adopt EPA's findings as its own.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Pallone
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal
cross-references, accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that Federal departments and agencies
should support efforts to achieve the science-based, 10-year
national objectives for improving the health of all Americans
through reduced exposure to mercury that are established in
Healthy People 2020 and were developed under the leadership
of the National Institutes of Health and the
[[Page H6597]]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during two
presidential administrations.
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 7. REDUCING BLOOD-MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS.
The provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective, and
the rules specified in section 3(b) shall be revived and
restored, if the Administrator finds, in consultation with
the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that by allowing
continued uncontrolled emissions of mercury from cement kilns
this Act threatens to impede efforts to achieve the science-
based, 10-year national objective for reducing mercury
concentrations in children's blood that is established in
Healthy People 2020.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment to this legislation
that will ensure that the public health of Americans is protected under
the bill.
In December of last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services released their Healthy People 2020 report. And this report is
a culmination of a major undertaking initiated under the Bush
administration and completed by the Obama administration. It sets goals
and objectives with 10-year targets designed to guide national health
promotion and disease prevention efforts to improve the health of all
people in the United States.
In Healthy People 2020, HHS sets a goal to reduce the American
people's exposure to mercury. Mercury can cause aggravated asthma,
irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, and premature death in people with
heart and lung disease. In addition, mercury is a potent neurotoxin. It
is toxic to all of us, but it's particularly dangerous to our children.
That's why as part of the Healthy People 2020 report, HHS set a goal to
reduce concentrations of mercury found in children's blood samples by
30 percent by 2020.
Children who are exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from
a range of developmental and neurological abnormalities, including
delayed onset of walking, delayed onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and
learning disabilities. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that
each year about 60,000 children may be born in the U.S. with
neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance
because of exposure to mercury.
Cement kilns are one of the largest sources of air-borne mercury
pollution in the United States, and yet here we are, Madam Chair,
debating bills on the House floor that would go in the opposite
direction. We're talking about nullifying regulations that are already
on the books to increase infants' and children's exposure to mercury by
indefinitely delaying implementation of a law to reduce these toxic
emissions from cement kilns.
When the rules were finalized last year to cut pollution from cement
kilns, the EPA conducted an analysis of the effects of the rule. The
agency found that this rule would cut emissions of mercury from cement
plants by 92 percent--almost 17,000 pounds of mercury each year that
would be prevented from being released into our environment. For some
places, like in the heart of the Western United States, that means a
reduction of mercury deposition by 30 percent. And now in one fell
swoop, Madam Chair, this legislation will reverse that 30 percent
reduction.
My amendment would not let this happen if doing so would interfere
with achieving HHS' goal. It would prevent this bill from going into
effect if it interferes with the Department of Health and Human
Services' goal of reducing our children's exposure to mercury. And I
don't want to see this legislation enacted if it's going to affect our
children's ability to talk, read, write, or learn. I don't want more
people to be at risk for asthma and heart attacks, and I want Health
and Human Services to be able to do their job. If they have identified
mercury exposure as a risk to our children and to our citizens, I want
them to be able to minimize that risk, and we should not interfere.
So, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and
ensure that we can keep our country progressing towards improved public
health and keep our children safe from environmental pollutants.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I rise in opposition to the Pallone amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SULLIVAN. This amendment calls for findings and also would
effectively veto this bill. These are not findings for which we
established an underlying record in the proceedings relating to this
bill. The MACT program is a separate mandate for regulation and it
operates separately from the Healthy People 2020 initiative as far as
we are aware.
EPA estimates that the Cement MACT will reduce mercury emissions by
16,400 pounds per year, an amount that is only 0.15 percent of global
emissions. Mercury is emitted naturally and also globally. The
Department of Energy estimates that 5,500 tons, or 11 million pounds,
of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human
sources.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. First, this amendment simply adds a congressional finding
that Federal agencies should support ongoing efforts to reduce
Americans' exposure to mercury. This seems to me a no-brainer.
For the past 30 years, under both the Democrats and the Republicans,
the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of
Health, the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies at the
federal, State, and local levels have worked together to set science-
based, 10-year national objectives for improving the health of all
Americans. This is called the Healthy People initiative.
The Healthy People initiative has set critical public health
objectives for 2020. These goals are the product of an extensive
stakeholder process that involved public health experts, a wide range
of federal, State, and local government officials, a consortium of more
than 2,000 organizations, and the public.
The Healthy People 2020 initiative set a goal for reducing mercury
exposure. This goal is to reduce the level of mercury in the blood of
children and women of childbearing age by 30 percent by 2020. Mercury
exposure in the womb or at a young age can adversely affect the
developing brain and nervous system, damaging a child's long-term
cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor skills.
This amendment states that Congress agrees that we ought to set this
goal and we ought to try to achieve this goal as a way to reduce the
mercury levels in children. I hope we can all agree this is a
worthwhile objective.
The amendment also puts some weight behind this finding. If the EPA
administrator determines that allowing cement kilns to continue
emitting toxic mercury without controls threatens to block attainment
of the Healthy People standard by 2020 to reduce mercury in children,
then the bill has no effect. The administrator can reach this
determination only after consultation with experts at NIH and CDC.
This amendment is common sense. There's no point in engaging in an
extensive process to set broadly agreed upon goals to guide agency
actions to improve the health of Americans and then adopt laws that
prevent agencies from meeting these goals.
Now, if Republicans want to vote against these goals, that's what
they'll be doing if they vote against the Pallone amendment.
Unfortunately, the bill we're considering today could hinder this
initiative's goal to reduce children's mercury exposure by nullifying
long overdue rules to reduce toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns.
{time} 1650
But the Republicans have told us that their bill will not hurt public
health. They've argued that mercury reductions achieved by cement and
boiler rules won't have a discernable effect for public health. It
won't even benefit us in how we achieve these goals. Well, if they
actually believe that, then those who support this bill should consider
this amendment as an opportunity to prove that the bill has
[[Page H6598]]
no impact on the mercury levels in children's blood.
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to support
these goals, and not to nullify the goals as they would like to nullify
the EPA rules.
I support the Pallone amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for
it.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, lines 16 and 17, strike ``not earlier than 5 years
after the effective date of the regulation'' and insert ``not
later than 3 years after the regulation is promulgated as
final''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I've been to the floor before and I've used
these famous words, and I think I've even used them in committee: Can
we all get along?
I just can't imagine that if we queried this industry that so many
people would want to, if you will, ignore the facts that are impacting
not only our community but our children.
First of all, it's important to note that the CBO has established
that H.R. 2681 will cost $1 million.
I want jobs to continue. I want jobs to be created. I think the
service dealing with our industry is important, but I think lives are
important. And I cannot imagine in this particular instance why we
would want to block the EPA from finding a way to save lives. And so I
rise today to introduce an amendment that would establish the fact that
compliance would come by 3 years after the implementation of the
resolution by the EPA.
Remember now that every party has an opportunity to participate, but
listen to what is happening with the impact of mercury on our children.
If these safeguards are blocked, up to 34,300 premature deaths would
be in place. These will be the consequences of it. Over 17,800 more
heart attacks; over 180,000 additional asthma attacks; over 3 million
more days of missed work or school; and billions of taxpayer dollars
wasted treating these preventible accidents--or illnesses, if you will.
In addition, I believe that the idea of jobs should not be a threat
to life. Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply
with EPA rules no earlier than 5 years after the rules have been
finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance. There is no
deadline set for the industry compliance. That's an unfair imbalance
between jobs and lives, and I know that we can find the right balance.
These industry leaders are citizens in communities. They support Boy
Scouts and Girl Scouts. They support PTOs and school athletic teams.
Their very constituents are their workers and their families, some of
those very families that will be subject to the conditions where
schools are near concrete manufacturing companies. It is happening all
over America.
I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability
to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including
the cement industry, as they're required to do under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting this and have resulted in
saving--a 1.7 million ton reduction of air pollution per year.
My amendment simply says that to comply with the EPA rules, it should
occur no later than 3 years after the rules have finalized.
Let me tell you why this is a good amendment. It gets people to work.
It gets you focusing quickly on the remedy. It helps you put the remedy
in place, and it helps to save lives.
This is a task that has been given to the EPA for 40 years. In fact,
it was given to the EPA under a Republican administration, as I recall,
Richard Nixon. We worked together then because we believed that America
could be better by creating jobs but also protecting our environment.
There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of
the EPA to protect our air, but I believe we can do both. We can work
together.
There is pollution; it does exist. Just come to a city like Houston
where asthma rates are up because of the pollution that we have.
It is important to find a way to balance the lives of those who are
impacted by things like chest pain, coughing, digestive problems,
dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat
irritation, watery eyes, while keeping our jobs.
How do we do it? We rush toward fixing the problem. We rush toward
creating the jobs by having the kind of technology that allows us to
cure this problem and keep these jobs.
Colleagues, I believe this is an important approach. It is to find
the new technology that allows us to clean the air. It is not to stall
and block the EPA. It is to find a way to get quickly to the solution
to be able to save lives.
Let me say that I am hopeful that the amendment will be perceived as
an amendment that rushes toward helping those who are creating jobs,
but it is rushing toward allowing the EPA to save lives. Let us not
sacrifice lives for convenience. Let us save lives.
My amendment is a very constructive amendment to allow compliance in
3 years. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2681 the
``Cement Sector Regulator Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the
cement industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized.
Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply with EPA
rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been finalized.
The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no deadline set
for industry compliance.
I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability
to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including
the cement industry, as they are required to do under the Clean Air
Act. The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting 170 different types of
facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton reduction in air
pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized for the cement
kiln industry and these bills are intended to indefinitely delay
compliance with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards, prior to their promulgation.
For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our
environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the
ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long
term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures
for clean air.
Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level
ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory
emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants,
crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and
are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood.
When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our
lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest
pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy,
sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes.
Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory
diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term
health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed
to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective.
The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is
to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities
are addressed. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. The EPA has
spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue
regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler industry
will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power
plants and electric utilities.
The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented,
mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public
health.
Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking
about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more
[[Page H6599]]
do we need to know. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
this rule would prevent the following:
9,000 premature deaths;
5,500 heart attacks;
58,000 asthma attacks;
6,000 hospital and emergency room visits;
6,000 cases of bronchitis; and
440,000 missed work days.
The EPA has done its due diligence; a comprehensive review of all
aspects of these regulations has been done, and the EPA is currently in
the process of revising its proposed rules in order to reflect industry
concerns. If the EPA is willing to compromise, the cement industry must
be as well.
I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act
responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing
polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate
global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job
creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to
allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and
we must not strip the agency of that right.
Lest we forget that since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los
Angeles for the poorest air quality in the nation. The poor air quality
is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and
sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known
to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency
charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious
problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe,
the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by
deep funding cuts in priority initiatives.
My friends on the other side of the aisle seem much more interested
in stripping the EPA of its authority than passing jobs legislation. It
has been nearly 10 months since the Republicans took control of the
House, promising the American people they would create jobs. As October
begins, they have not offered a single jobs bill, nor have they brought
President Obama's American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote.
The focus of this Congress must be on passing President Obama's
American Jobs Act and other legislation that will create jobs and put
the American people back to work. Last weekend, I had the opportunity
to visit several small businesses at home in the 18th Congressional
District of Texas. I was able to roll up my sleeves and get involved
with the hard working men and women of Houston.
I visited Dr. German Ramos at the Canal Medical Center, where I had
the opportunity to meet with Dr. Ramos and his employees. I visited
Atlantic Petroleum and Mineral Resources where I met with President and
CEO Donald Sheffield, and got to work at De Walt Construction Company,
owned by single mother Wanda De Walt, who employs 15 people and wants
to hire more. I also had the opportunity to visit floral shops, beauty
salons, bakeries and other small businesses throughout Houston.
I spoke with these entrepreneurs and small business owners who
represent America's biggest job creators, and their message was clear.
These business owners and entrepreneurs encouraged me to work to pass
powerful bipartisan, specific proposals to create jobs. It was a
privilege to perform the hands on duties these hard working Houstonians
do every day. We must engage and support entrepreneurs, innovators and
small businesses to create jobs. I will be proposing a bill that will
create jobs, and I look forward to bipartisan support.
Madam Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states,
and there are times when we exist as a single nation with national
needs. One state did not defend the nation after the attacks on Pearl
Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish
civil rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must
unite beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a nation,
and protecting the quality of our air is one of those times.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in
order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By
ensuring the cement industry must comply with finalized EPA
regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our
constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by
ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Under the existing Clean Air Act, cement plants have 3
years to comply with section 112 standards; incinerators have 5 years
to comply with section 129 standards. Because of the testimony that we
heard over a series of hearings, the affected industry has indicated
that they need some conformity in complying with these new regulations.
As you know, there were regulations adopted in 2005 or 2006 that were
invalidated by the courts. EPA came back with new regulations that were
a little bit more complicated, more strenuous; and as a result of that,
we've discovered that these cement industries have had difficulty
complying with the 112 and 129 within the time period. So our
legislation simply directs the EPA to go back, relook at the
regulations, and within 15 months come back with a new regulation and
then give the industry 5 years to comply on the cement side and the
incinerator side. So we provide some conformity in our legislation.
The gentlewoman from Texas is basically changing that back to 3
years. And the whole purpose of our legislation, because of the
hearings, because of the technology required, it was quite evident that
more time was needed. So we set a time period, a minimum time of 5
years to comply. The administrator of the EPA may grant additional
time, if necessary, but we doubt that that would happen.
So for that reason, for a pragmatic reason, I would oppose the
gentlewoman's amendment so that we can have some conformity in these
regulations.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I think the very argument that you just made is one that I would like
to utilize and suggest that conformity could be 3 or 5. And I'm
suggesting conformity should be 3 years, with the EPA doing just as you
said, having the discretion to give more time. I think it shows us, as
a Congress, being as balanced for jobs--which I know that you're trying
to do--as trying to save lives. And there are lives that are impacted
by the conditions that these companies generate.
{time} 1700
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much.
Reclaiming my time, like I said, the purpose of our legislation is to
extend it to 5 years because of the complications involved. And for
that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and
ask Members to vote against the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Quigley
Mr QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION FROM AVOIDABLE CASES OF CANCER.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules
identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions
from any cement kiln if such emissions are increasing the
risk of cancer.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, my amendment permits the EPA to continue to
enforce and finalize the regulations preempted by the bill at hand if
the emissions limited by these regulations are found to cause cancer.
In other words, this amendment says the administrator shall not delay
actions to reduce the emissions from any cement kiln if such emissions
are increasing the occurrence of cancer.
We stand here today having an argument that is predicated on the
notion that when it comes to matters of job creation and environmental
stewardship and protection of public health,
[[Page H6600]]
you can only have one or the other. You must pick between creating and
retaining jobs, they'll tell you, or protecting and conserving our
land, air, water, and keeping our public healthy. This is a false
notion, born of scare tactics and the fact that those who purport these
ideas aren't basing their beliefs on science.
There are both economic and societal factors involved. It's not an
either/or. It's dollar signs, yes; but it's also lives, days in
hospitals, cancer treatments, and trips to the emergency room for small
children and the elderly.
Come to Chicago, the asthma morbidity and mortality capital of the
United States.
Cement kilns are the third largest source of mercury emissions in the
U.S. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that impacts and impairs the
ability of infants and children to think and learn. The toxic air
pollutants found in cement kiln emissions can cause cancer, and they
do.
The toxic air pollutants found in cement kiln emissions damage the
eyes, skin, and breathing passages. The toxic air pollutants found in
cement kiln emissions harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous systems.
They cause pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and premature death.
The carcinogens found in cement kiln emissions include toxic air
pollutants including mercury, arsenic, acid gases, hydrochloric acid,
dioxins, and other harmful pollutants that add to the Nation's problems
with soot and smog. They are known carcinogens, known carcinogens
pumped from these sources into our air, into our land, and into our
waters. They even land on the grass in Wisconsin eaten by cows and
drunk in milk.
But don't take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Plain and simple,
Madam Chair, the Clean Air Act saves lives. The Clean Air Act has saved
the lives of over 160,000 people in the 40 years it has been on the
books. This is not a number to be debated. In fact, this is a number
that is conservatively estimated by the EPA.
This is not some inflated statistic designed for shock value or for
any other reason. We know that the Clean Air Act has human value. Since
1990, EPA has set numeric emission limits on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis for more than 100 industry source categories. This approach has
been a major success, reducing emissions of carcinogens and other
highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year.
Each of EPA's proposed rules would save thousands more lives each
year. One example, an example we're dealing with today, pertains to the
EPA's proposed rule regarding toxic emissions from cement kilns. This
rule simply calls for cement kilns to meet numeric emission standards
for mercury and other toxic pollutants.
This so-called ``job-killing'' rule is predicted to save up to 2,500
lives each year. The limit will annually prevent 1,500 heart attacks,
17,000 asthma attacks and over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits
and 130,000 days of missed work. Any rule that saves lives is a matter
of public health.
We're dealing with skyrocketing rates of death due to asthma and
burdening more children at earlier ages with lifelong and sometimes
debilitating cases of asthma from particulate matter being pumped into
our air.
A report released by the American Lung Association reported nearly 60
percent of Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached
unhealthy levels that can and do make people sick.
These are measures that will help keep us alive and able to work.
These are measures that will create jobs in the clean and green
industrial industry.
Attacks on the Clean Air Act and the EPA's ability to regulate
greenhouse gases are a huge piece of the larger climate crisis, a
crisis that has a hefty cost: our lives. The need to crack down on
greenhouse gas emissions is based on sound science, the results of
hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that show their debilitating effects
on our health and our planet--zero peer-reviewed studies that show that
global warming does not exist and that man does not contribute to it.
We're asked to go back now. Why? Why are we considering legislation
to halt rules that have been considered for now 10 years? This is
beyond me. Why are we considering legislation to halt rules that will
keep us at work, healthy and alive?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. This amendment directs the administrator of the EPA to
implement current cement plants rules if emissions at cement kilns are
increasing the risk of cancer. This amendment would, in effect, defeat
the entire purpose of our legislation.
Our bill directs EPA to protect public health, also consider jobs and
the effect of that on the economy, and all the aspects of American
well-being, health benefits, not just one. So we think it's important
that EPA consider all public health risks, not just cancer.
All of the testimony has indicated that there needs to be a more
balanced approach in this cement rule issued by EPA. As you know, EPA
first adopted a cement rule in 1999. They did another one in 2005. It
was challenged in court. They came back with another one in 2006. That
one is so vigorous that it's very difficult for the industry to meet
those standards.
So for the fact that this amendment is focusing only on one public
health risk, and I believe that it would defeat the entire purpose of
our bill, which is to protect public health, but also to strengthen the
economy by preventing a loss of jobs, and to look at the entire public
health benefits, for that reason I would respectfully urge the defeat
of this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION FROM RESPIRATORY AND CARDIOVASCULAR
ILLNESS AND DEATH.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules
identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions
from any cement kiln if such emissions are causing
respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and deaths,
including cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, and
bronchitis.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, this congressional session
is not even a year old and the Republican leadership has already tried
to pass more than 125 anti-environmental bills, amendments, and riders.
They started by attacking public health standards to reduce carbon
dioxide pollution on the premise that we should trust oil-funded
soothsayers over climatologists and reject the overwhelming scientific
consensus that global warming is already occurring and threatens our
environment and public health.
When the Republicans attacked greenhouse gas standards, they claimed
that they, nonetheless, supported Clean Air Act standards to reduce
toxic pollutants like mercury. After all, it was a Republican President
who signed this legislation creating the Environmental Protection
Agency more than 40 years ago.
A Republican President signed the Clean Air Act of 1970, which
established the process that the EPA is using today to reduce toxic
pollution, including mercury and dioxin. A Republican President signed
the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 establishing--steel yourself--a
cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution. That Clean
Air Act bill of 1990 also accelerated reductions of other toxic
pollutants because Congress believed that
[[Page H6601]]
the EPA was not moving quickly enough to reduce toxic pollution.
{time} 1710
All of these major clean air bills were passed by Democratic
Congresses with Republican Presidents. While it may seem unbelievable
in today's political climate, there was a time in the not-so-distant
past when environmental protection had bipartisan support. As a result
of the bipartisan effort to protect the environment, our economy grew
while air pollution levels fell and public health improved.
Air quality here in Washington, D.C., in Los Angeles, and other major
cities is healthier today than it was in 1970 thanks to the Clean Air
Act. Our automobiles no longer emit unlimited quantities of asthma and
lung cancer-causing pollution, or lead. Our power plants now have
scrubbers to reduce the sulfur dioxide pollution that caused acid rain
and poisoned rivers and streams throughout the United States before
1990. Mercury pollution has fallen 80 percent thanks to that act.
Thanks to these improvements in air quality, the Clean Air Act saves
approximately 160,000 lives a year by preventing deaths otherwise
caused by pollution.
When this new Republican Congress attacked greenhouse gas
regulations, they claimed that they would not reverse the improvements
that the Clean Air Act has made in reducing toxic pollution. Of course,
their attempt to block greenhouse gas pollution standards was only the
opening salvo. This Republican House has passed dozens of bills and
amendments effectively repealing the Clean Air Act by blocking
regulation of soot, smog, and dioxin. Their assault on the Clean Air
Act is so comprehensive that they have passed regulation to deregulate
multiple kinds of soot. Today, we'll vote on a bill to deregulate
mercury and other toxic pollution from cement factories.
This bill would not only deregulate mercury pollution from cement
factories, it would also block the EPA public health standards for
other deadly pollutants such as the particulate pollution that scars
lung tissue and causes cancer and emphysema. Blocking public health
standards for cement kilns will increase net costs for American
taxpayers by $6.3 billion to $17.6 billion every year by increasing the
incidence of heart attacks, lung cancer, asthma attacks, and
developmental disabilities in children.
They claim that these antipublic health bills would create jobs. The
fact is that while the Clean Air Act has reduced dangerous air
pollution for the last 40 years, saving 160,000 lives last year alone,
America's economy doubled in size. It didn't shrink, the sky didn't
fall, and the worst predictions of our friends on the other side, not
one of them came true.
I have introduced two amendments to H.R. 2681. I'm only going to move
this one, Madam Chairman. This will clarify that the provisions in this
bill will not go into effect if it causes respiratory illness, cardiac
disease, other diseases, or death. This amendment would apply
throughout the country, ensuring that rural, suburban, and urban
Americans would be protected equally from reckless provisions in the
underlying bill.
My amendment says, ``The administrator shall not delay actions to
reduce emissions from any cement kiln if such emission is causing
respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, including cases of
heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis.'' This ensures that if
H.R. 2681 passes, God help us, we will not be increasing the rate of
respiratory disease or sending more children to the hospital with
asthma attacks. Since members of the majority claim to be equally
concerned about the health of our constituents, I wanted to give them
an opportunity to prove it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia.
I might also add that the last significant change to the Clean Air
Act was back in 1990, and I don't think anyone would ever suggest that
Congress does not have a right to go back and look at legislation that
was passed 21 years ago and that there may be problems with some of
that legislation.
There is no question that we've benefited from the Clean Air Act, but
there is also no question that this administration, this EPA, has been
the most aggressive in recent memory. They've been passing some of the
most expensive regulations ever adopted by EPA, and it's having an
impact on the economy because jobs are being lost as a direct result of
many of these regulations.
Our bill has directed EPA to protect public health, to balance the
economic needs, the jobs needs, all of this, as a part of an overall
balanced view of EPA regulations.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. My colleague, whom I respect, said that
we're losing jobs because of this onerous regulation. I'm just
wondering if my colleague has any data on how many jobs were lost in
the last 40 years due to the Clean Air Act--net.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me just say to you that the last 40 years, we've
had a lot of economic expansion. Right now we've just come out of a
recession. We have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Everyone's talking
about jobs, and all of the testimony that we've received about these
regulations indicates that jobs will be lost. So what's the difference
then, if you lose a job, you lose a job? That makes unemployment rates
go up.
I'm not debating with you that over the last 40 years, generally
speaking, we've had economic expansion and job creation, but we're in a
very unique time right now, and we think that this is a time in which
we need a more balanced approach to some of these regulations.
Your amendment specifically looks at respiratory, cardiovascular
illnesses, and death, including heart attacks, asthma attacks, and
bronchitis. We know that EPA looks at all of this in its health
benefits and costs, and we do not think it's necessary to specifically
spell this out in our legislation. For that reason, I would
respectfully oppose the amendment and ask Members to vote against the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Welch
Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal
cross-references, accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that the American people are exposed to
mercury from industrial sources addressed by the rules listed
in section 2(b) of this Act through the consumption of fish
containing mercury and every State in the Nation has issued
at least one mercury advisory for fish consumption.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, in this legislation there are findings. It is
common in our legislation for there to be a finding section. This
amendment would propose a finding for inclusion in this important
legislation, and that finding would read that ``Congress finds that the
American people are exposed to mercury from industrial sources
addressed by the rules listed in section 2(b) of this act through the
consumption of fish containing mercury, and every State in the Nation
has issued at least one mercury advisory for fish consumption.''
So the question is, to the proponents of this legislation, as to
whether there would be an objection to include this finding about
mercury and the scientific community's absolute conclusion that mercury
is hazardous to the
[[Page H6602]]
health of those who consume it. That's the question. If you believe
that science has a place in our consideration of important legislation
that affects health and safety, then it would suggest that you would
want to have a finding affirming Congress's acceptance of the
scientific conclusion that mercury causes harmful health effects.
So this amendment offers this Congress the opportunity to say the
obvious, and that is: Mercury poisoning is bad for our health.
The reason why I ask that this Congress consider this finding is that
this Congress has been debating the applicability of science to our
deliberations. This is not a question of whether a regulation is
onerous or not or the cost is too great for the benefits derived; it's
a question of whether we will accept the responsibility to acknowledge
that mercury does have significant detrimental health consequences.
This should be acknowledged. It should be part of this legislation.
What this Congress cannot do, whatever its dispute is about the
degree of regulation, the effectiveness of regulation, whether it's too
onerous or not, is have the point of view that we can, by legislation,
defy science. It does not allow us to do that.
So, Madam Chair, I urge that this Congress accept this finding, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1720
Mr. CULBERSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, the air contains mercury. The
environment contains mercury from natural sources. The Communist
Chinese, of course, are the world's largest polluter, and the plume of
pollution from Communist China stretches all the way across the Pacific
Ocean and covers up the Western and Central part of the United States.
This map, which I hope you can see there, Madam Chairman, shows the
Western and Central U.S. covered by a plume of red. These are mercury
deposits coming from Communist China. The United States, through the
Clean Air Act and with the efforts of industry and individuals across
the Nation, has dramatically reduced pollution levels in the air and in
the water.
We are all committed to making sure that our kids are drinking clean
water and breathing clean air. This amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont is a simple statement that we find we're exposed to
mercury. Congress might as well also issue a finding that we're exposed
to carbon dioxide. I'm exposed to carbon dioxide right here. They're
trying to make that a pollutant.
What the Obama Democrats have done to crush jobs in the cement
industry is an illustration of what Obama Democrats have done in their
attempt to crush job creation all over the United States.
In this EPA regulation on the cement industry, the Obama Democrats
have set an impossibly high standard far beyond what even the European
Union seeks. What the Obama Democrats attempt to impose on the cement
industry is like asking them to win the decathlon, where you have to
get a gold medal in every event. They've set, for example, this rule
that 98 percent of all mercury has to be eliminated. The technology
doesn't exist for that, yet the industry has to comply with the Obama
Democrat rule by next September, wiping out much of the cement industry
in the United States at a time when the construction industry in
America is already in a state of depression.
It is evident from the record that the cement industry today is
producing at a rate equivalent to 1962, yet the Obama Democrats seek to
crush it further and eliminate more job creation in an absolutely vital
sector of American industry, which will simply have the effect, as they
have already done in so many other industries, of driving the work
offshore--driving more cement production to Communist China, where they
have no pollution controls.
For example, in the auto industry, the Obama Democrats have set
automobile mileage standards so impossibly high that no automobile in
America today can meet it other than the Prius. So the auto industry is
going to be crushed. In the oil industry, they've set impossibly high
standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, driving offshore drilling
to Brazil and other countries. All those big rigs are gone. They won't
come back, but we're trying to open up drilling in the gulf.
In sector after sector after sector, Obama Democrats are crushing the
American economy and crushing American business owners with impossible
regulations that cannot be met.
This is common sense. Constitutional conservatives in the House are
trying to get this economy back on track and to grow jobs by
eliminating regulation, by cutting taxes, and by cutting spending. This
legislation today is a straightforward, simple attempt to postpone the
damage. All we can do by controlling the House is to stop the damage
inflicted by Obama Democrats on the American economy. That's what we
can do with this legislation.
Give us 5 years more to implement it until we get reinforcements and
have a constitutionally conservative Senate and a constitutional
conservative in the White House, which is when we can really grow this
economy and cut taxes and cut spending and can put the Federal
Government back in the box designed by the Founders.
Get out of my pocket. Get out of my way. Get off my back. Unleash
American entrepreneurship, and you'll really see the American economy
grow if you'd just leave us alone. Let Texans run Texas. Let
Kentuckians run Kentucky. Let us manage our own businesses, our own
families, our own affairs--to manage and invest and save or spend our
own money in the way we wish.
You'll see American industry protect the environment, grow jobs,
drill here and drill now for oil and gas safely and cleanly in the Gulf
of Mexico and across the United States. You'll see the cement industry
and the construction industry come back if we just stop crushing them
with impossible regulations that cannot be met by any available
technology anywhere on Earth.
For all of those reasons, I ask the Members of the House to oppose
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Moore
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of the bill the following:
SEC. 6. DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This Act shall not take effect until the
President certifies that implementation of this Act--
(1) will not adversely affect public health in the United
States; and
(2) will not have a disproportionately negative impact on
subpopulations that are most at risk from hazardous air
pollutants, including communities with a high proportion of
minorities, low-income communities, pregnant women, and the
elderly.
(b) Determination Required.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
publish in the Federal Register--
(1) the certification described in subsection (a); or
(2) an explanation of why such certification is not
warranted.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply require that the
President certify that this bill will not have an adverse effect on the
health of Americans. It would specifically and additionally ensure that
the legislation would not result in a disproportionately adverse impact
on at-risk subpopulations.
I would submit that the majority should be enthused about my
amendment to require the President to certify that the delay of cement
kiln standards won't harm the public health of Americans and have this
disproportionate adverse impact. This is since we have heard all day
the majority speak of how the majority of mercury,
[[Page H6603]]
for example, comes from natural sources, that it comes from foreign
sources from the Pacific to the Mississippi, and that the dangers of
mercury should not be unfairly burdened and blamed on cement kilns.
This Presidential certification would allow them to rebut those
assertions. This Presidential certification would allow them to rebut
that cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury
pollution in the United States or that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin
that can affect the mental development of children.
Since this majority has questioned the methodology of the EPA
findings using OMB standards, the assumptions, they should welcome this
Presidential finding to rebut the assertion that EPA has made that
cement kilns also emit lead, arsenic, and other toxic metals that could
be carcinogenic and seriously dangerous.
We do know that, throughout the history of the Clean Air Act, we have
seen tremendous benefits in quality of life for Americans. Under the
Clean Air Act, the individual emissions of carcinogens and other highly
toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 million tons each year through
actions taken, voluntarily in many cases, by more than 170 industries.
The health benefits just keep adding up, and they've been tremendously
important. In 2010, the reductions in fine particles and ozone
pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than
160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million
lost workdays, and 1.7 million asthma attacks.
But there is so much more work to be done.
This neurotoxin is widespread in our Nation's waterways. Currently,
48 States have issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury
contamination, including 23 States that have issued Statewide
advisories for all of their lakes and rivers. My district, of course,
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is located on one of the Great Lakes, which is
a major resource for my community, for the region and, indeed, for the
world, and it has been subject to large amounts of mercury
contamination from airborne pollutants.
I would certainly be interested in a Presidential certification and
in the assurance that the delay of this bill would not have an adverse
impact on my constituents. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy compiled mercury emissions data
for the eight Great Lakes States and found that, in 2005, Portland
cement plants in these States emitted 1.4 tons of mercury, which is
roughly 4 percent of the total of 34.9 tons.
{time} 1730
I would be immensely, Madam Chair, interested in a certification by
the President of the United States that indeed, indeed, this mercury
contamination was not caused by these cement kilns but, instead, was
caused by natural causes or from foreign sources. This, I think, would
vindicate those who are trying to delay this process, and it would work
toward advancing their theory that economic development should not be
hindered by untoward, unproven health concerns.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, this amendment should really be called the
``Moore veto amendment'' because what it effectively does is veto this
bill.
I would point out that Paul Valberg, former member of the Harvard
School of Public Health, testified before the Energy and Commerce
Committee that by every public health measure, from infant mortality to
life expectancy, we are healthier today and exposed to fewer hazards
than ever before.
Our present-day air is much cleaner than it was a year ago, and our
air quality is among the best in the world. H.R. 2681 does not change
or modify any existing public health protection. It simply sets forth a
process for EPA to implement stronger protections as called for in the
Clean Air Act that are achievable, and the issue here is achievability.
Standards in this act are set in such a manner that it's going to take
time to achieve these emissions.
As we pointed out, the EU, which is supposedly one of the standards
of the world on air and water quality, has set a standard that ours is
five times less onerous than the one that is being imposed by the EPA;
and, arguably, the industry says meeting that standard is going to take
more technology and more time.
This bill simply directs the EPA to follow the language of the Clean
Air Act statute and write standards that real-world cement plants can
meet. It may be the EU standards are the standards they can meet. I am
not here to make that determination.
But the standards that we are presently asked to meet in the cement
industry are not attainable at this time, and it takes time to make it
work.
Well, in H.R. 2681, the costs are certain. It's going to be
astronomical and certain enough that the businesses tell us that it
will shut down plants. And when you shut down a plant, you kill jobs
and the labor that works in that plant will be unemployed; and that
will be part of the unemployment figures we will read within the next
year as the plant shuts down.
So achievable standards give you the opportunity to work towards the
objective that we're all seeking here. But unachievable standards cause
panic, cause excess costs, and that unachievable regulation causes the
industries, some of which are not tied together, they are separate
companies owned by separate people, to say we can't meet this standard,
not within the time we have been given.
We might as well shut the plant and go someplace else, and so they
shut the plant and go someplace else. Americans lose jobs that pay
$65,000 to $80,000 a year, and the plant goes over to China and joins
in China's belch of mercury--which many people have talked about here
today--that sweeps across our country every day because they don't meet
the clean air standards that we already meet in this great Nation.
At some point in time, reasonableness and common sense have to come
into these regulations. Give the industry a chance to achieve something
that is achievable, and that's what this bill does. It says, take
another look, come up with achievable standards, and then give us the
time to achieve them. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to
take.
I think it's the proper position to take to save this industry, the
cement industry, from possible annihilation in this country; and soon
we would face, once again, people saying why are all the cement jobs
overseas.
Madam Chair, I oppose the Moore amendment. I was tempted to call this
the ``fox watching the hen house amendment,'' but I'm not going to do
that.
We need to get this done, and having veto power over this amendment
is not the suggestion that is relative to the debate we are having here
today.
I ask that there be a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment says that the President, whoever that
President is or will be, would certify that implementation of the act
will not adversely affect public health in the country and will not
have a disproportionate impact, a negative impact on sub-populations
that are most at risk from hazardous air pollutants, including
communities with a high proportion of minorities, low-income
communities, pregnant women, and the elderly.
I don't know how my Republican colleagues can oppose that. First of
all, I didn't like that little slur that I heard about the President of
the United States. I think the President would make an honest call. I
trust any President of the United States to make an honest call if this
amendment were adopted.
But the whole idea of our environmental laws is that we could all
live together. If an elderly person is more susceptible to asthma, and
if children are more susceptible to harm from air pollution, we don't
want to say that they have to live somewhere else. We should all be
able to live together. But
[[Page H6604]]
there are some sub-populations that are at greater risk; and we ought
to recognize that, especially low-income populations.
A lot of minority groups are more susceptible to asthma. And when you
talk about minority and low-income people, they don't have houses where
they can send their kids down to the playroom. They can have their kids
play outside, and they are going to be breathing in a lot of this air
pollution.
So I think that before we implement this law to delay for 6, 8, 10
years any impact to control the harmful air pollution, we ought to have
some certification that we are not going to be putting these
populations at risk.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Waxman, there is no definition of ``adverse'' in
the act. That's in this amendment. That's one of the concerns. If
there's any adverse impact, then the act doesn't go into effect, nor is
there any definition of ``disproportionately.'' Those terms are not
defined. Would you agree there is no definition?
Mr. WAXMAN. No, I don't agree with you. First of all, it says
``adverse.'' I think adverse is pretty understandable. Adverse would be
negative, negative.
Mr. CULBERSON. Any negative.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, negative to air pollution. We're talking about air
pollution, the harm from air pollution. We are talking about asthma,
cancer. Toxic pollutants can cause brain damage.
We're not talking about some inconvenience to them. We're talking
about adverse public health impact on the public in the United States,
first of all, and then a disproportionate negative impact on sub-
populations that are most at risk for hazardous air pollutants.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CULBERSON. If there is any adverse impact or any disproportionate
negative impact, the act is not going to affect that, no matter how
small.
Mr. WAXMAN. It says will not have a disproportionate negative impact
or adversely affect public health. I think the language is clear enough
for the President to make a finding and get the guidance on it in order
to determine whether this bill should be held up.
So we may disagree, but I don't think that the language is poorly
drafted. I think it's pretty clearly drafted, and I would support the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
{time} 1740
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, after line 8, insert the following subsection:
(c) Notice in Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register estimating the
public health impact of delaying regulation for the Portland
cement manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants
until the compliance date of the rules required by subsection
(a) instead of the compliance date of the rules made
ineffective by subsection (b).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. All it says
is that if we're going to delay these important rules, these lifesaving
rules, then the EPA would be required to publish in the Federal
Register the public health impact of delaying this regulation.
For example, one of the public health impacts of clean air standards
for cement plants is the prevention of 17,000 cases of asthma. All
we're saying is that transparency, information given to the public, so
the public will know what the impact of these delayed regulations will
be.
I can see no reason why Republicans wouldn't adopt a commonsense
amendment like this because, quite frankly, if they feel this is such
an important measure that they clearly acknowledge based on their
response to the last amendment offered, they acknowledged that there
will be health impacts, they most certainly would have to agree that
telling the public what the health impacts will be would be a fair and
important thing to do.
So my amendment is very simple. As we delay these important
environmental regulations, they are proposing delaying these important
environmental regulations to protect people from dirty air emitted from
cement plants, let's just tell the public how many heart attacks, how
many asthma attacks, how many deaths, how much mercury contamination,
how much lead and arsenic will impact the health of our citizens. How
much cancer. What will be the health impacts of delaying these
important rules; let's print it in the Federal Register.
I'm sure that people who favor this legislation would be happy to
say, you know what, yes, we're giving you cancer; yes, we're giving you
heart attacks; yes, we're giving you asthma attacks, but we have to do
it because we believe it'll save jobs. You have to be sick so somebody
might theoretically be able to get a job in a cement plant.
The fact is, as I pointed out many times, it's a false choice between
a job and a regulation. It's a false choice between economic activity
and clean air and a healthy environment. But since my friends on the
other end of the aisle want to make the case that we need to delay
these important environmental regulations in order to promote jobs, at
least let's talk about and be honest with the public about the health
impacts.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of
reasons. Number one, because EPA has already comprehensively and
exhaustively examined the health benefits cost and every other analysis
relating to their regulations. We have voluminous information about
those benefits.
I would also say that we've heard testimony after testimony from
experts who say that you cannot in any way with certainty say how many
lives are going to be saved, how many people are not going to be put in
the hospital, how many cases of asthma are going to be not contracted
because of passing a regulation or not passing a regulation. They have
models. They come up with estimates, and there's not anything in this
amendment that would provide any more certainty. And for that reason, I
oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the author of the amendment.
Mr. ELLISON. I just want to make a few points in rebuttal.
First of all, Congresswoman Capps offered an amendment that contained
the EPA findings on the health impact, and that was opposed pretty
vigorously. We could have known for the public record; we would have
had it there. That was opposed, though. So the response that we just
heard from the other side of the aisle is interesting, to say the
least.
The other important point, the fact is, if you believe this is an
important measure to pass, why not disclose this to the public, let the
public know what we're getting into, and I would think this would be a
commonsense measure and would get approval from all sides.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I think the public has a right to
know, and I don't think the Congress of the United States ought to deny
them that information. As I heard the argument from the gentleman from
Kentucky,
[[Page H6605]]
it's already been evaluated and is in the record by the EPA. I think
putting it in the Congressional Record is not even enough. If the
public wants to know, we ought to have full-page ads in the newspapers.
That's my view.
But that's not as far as the amendment would go, simply to put it in
the Federal Register and hope that the press would pick it up and
inform people. Let people know. Don't pass a bill to let the cement
kilns avoid coming to terms with regulations that will protect the
public health from all of these different incidents of serious diseases
and then not tell the American people that we've let them off the hook
and they should understand one of the consequences will be all of these
diseases and all of these deaths that otherwise could have been
prevented.
So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 17 by Mrs. Capps of California.
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 246, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 747]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
NOES--246
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--21
Bachmann
Boren
Cohen
Davis (CA)
Deutch
Engel
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Lowey
Maloney
McIntyre
Nadler
Pastor (AZ)
Polis
Rangel
Ryan (OH)
Schwartz
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
{time} 1811
Messrs. AMODEI, BENISHEK, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, FLORES, CANSECO,
WALBERG, BISHOP of Utah, ROE of Tennessee and Mrs. BLACK changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas and BISHOP of Georgia changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McIntrye. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 747, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded
[[Page H6606]]
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 251, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 748]
AYES--162
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
NOES--251
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--20
Bachmann
Boren
Cohen
Culberson
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
Dreier
Giffords
Goodlatte
Gutierrez
Larson (CT)
Lowey
Maloney
Polis
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1815
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 748, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 254, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 749]
AYES--158
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
[[Page H6607]]
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--21
Bachmann
Berg
Bilbray
Boren
Cohen
Conyers
Davis (CA)
Edwards
Fattah
Giffords
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Larson (CT)
Lowey
Maloney
Polis
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1818
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Chair, on rollcall Nos. 747, 748, and
749, I was unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted on
747--``yes,'' on 748--``yes,'' and on 749--``yes.''
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Schakowsky) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 750]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Boren
Giffords
Hirono
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1822
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings
[[Page H6608]]
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 254, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 751]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Boren
Canseco
Giffords
Gohmert
Larson (CT)
Maloney
McMorris Rodgers
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1826
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 751, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 254, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 752]
AYES--169
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
[[Page H6609]]
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Boren
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Yoder
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1830
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 253, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 753]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--253
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Bachmann
Boren
Deutch
Emerson
Franks (AZ)
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Perlmutter
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1833
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
[[Page H6610]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 262, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 754]
AYES--162
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--262
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Bachmann
Boren
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1837
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Quigley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 755]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
[[Page H6611]]
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Boren
Giffords
Gohmert
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1840
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 248, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 756]
AYES--176
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Bachmann
Boren
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1846
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 249, not voting 10, as follows:
[[Page H6612]]
[Roll No. 757]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Boren
Dicks
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1850
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 256, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 758]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--256
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
[[Page H6613]]
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Boren
Dicks
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1853
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 252, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 759]
AYES--170
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--252
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Bachmann
Boren
Cardoza
Dicks
Giffords
Larson (CT)
Maloney
Polis
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1857
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Chair, on October 5, 2011, I was not
present for rollcall votes 747-759 due to the death of a close family
friend. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted:
``aye'' on rollcall vote 747; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 748; ``aye'' on
rollcall vote 749; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 750; ``aye'' on rollcall
vote 751; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 752; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 753;
``aye'' on rollcall vote 754; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 755; ``aye'' on
rollcall vote 756; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 757; ``aye'' on rollcall
vote 758; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 759.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ross of Florida). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 11, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 6, line 12, strike ``impacts.'' and insert ``impacts;
and''.
Page 6, after line 12, insert the following subparagraph:
(F) potential reductions in the number of illness-related
absences from work due to respiratory or other illnesses.
[[Page H6614]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1900
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply requires--it's a very
simple amendment--that the Environmental Protection Agency
administrator consider the potential reductions in the number of
illness-related absences from work when establishing a compliance date
for this cement kiln rule.
Cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury
pollution in the United States and also a leading emitter of lead,
arsenic, and other toxic dangerous metals--nothing, of course, that
anybody on either side of the aisle would like to see floating around
the atmosphere and absorbed in our bodies. Dramatically reducing the
amount of toxic pollutants cement kilns can spew in our Nation's air
and water will make America a healthier, more productive nation.
The EPA projects that every year that this particular rule is
applicable, the administration's cement kiln rule will prevent up to
2,500 premature deaths, 17,000 asthma attacks, and 130,000 days when
people will be too sick to go to work. Despite the erroneous claims
from a handful of vocal individuals within the cement industry that
this rule will ruin the economy, the truth is the cement kiln rule will
strengthen America's economy and the American worker because cement
kilns emit thousands of pounds of mercury and acid gases every year,
thousands of workers are unable to go to work because they are simply
too sick, meaning every day hardworking Americans are unable to work
and earn a paycheck so they can put food on their family's table. Not
only are these hardworking Americans not generating income, but many of
them are forced to spend their limited income on doctors' bills,
emergency room visits, and expensive medicines.
These Americans want to work. They want to be productive citizens.
Their employers want them to work, but the employers are spewing
environmental disaster into the air that prevents them from working.
Despite their most sincere interest and desire to put in a hard day's
work, they can't because the dirty cement kiln is spewing toxic
pollutants into the air making them sick and making them drive to the
hospital instead of their offices.
If the EPA administrator has to factor in issues such as potential
net employee impacts when establishing compliance dates when they
shouldn't, the administrator also will have to factor in potential
reductions in the number of illness-related absences from work. But
what good is saving 1 day's work at a cement plant if it means that
dozens of people will be too sick to go to work that day?
If the United States is going to retain its status as the world's
economic engine, then we need to have the world's healthiest and most
productive workforce. But that will not happen if we continue to let a
handful of dirty cement kilns scattered across the country undermine
the health and well-being of thousands of American workers.
I encourage my colleagues to understand the importance of a healthy
workforce and support my amendment. We must recognize that any
establishment of a compliance date that does not factor the health of
the American workforce is fundamentally flawed and inadequate.
I also would mention that this will affect horses, for horses and
animals, dogs and horses will breathe in the same air and it will
affect their well-being--well noted. On behalf of the hundreds and
thousands of American workers and animals who have been forced to miss
work because of the sickness incurred by breathing in toxic pollutants
from cement kilns, I ask you to support this amendment. It's time for
this Congress to stand up to protect our Nation's most valuable
resource, the American worker, and also the American worker's best
friend, his dog, and sometimes his horse.
I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee
for offering this amendment and particularly pointing out that it
relates to animals as well as people, and I would say that from our
analysis, certainly EPA considers work-related illnesses and absences
when they issue these regulations, and the specific section of the
bill, H.R. 2681, which the gentleman from Tennessee is amending relates
to the provisions that the administrator must consider relating to the
industry in trying to comply with the regulation.
This amendment would add to that illness-related work absences would
have to be considered as well, and we think that that would really be
duplicative of what they already considered. And because of that,
despite the great respect we have for the gentleman from Tennessee, I
would urge that this amendment not be adopted and urge other Members to
vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee if he
wishes to make any further statements.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman from Kentucky greatly
and appreciate his remarks, but I would say if his position is there's
no harm, no foul, if there's no harm, no foul and it's duplicative,
then there's no reason not to adopt it in case he's wrong, and I think
he is. I think it does add something. So the best case is you protect
the worker, and the worst case is you have a couple of extra sentences
in the law that make no difference.
So I would ask that we all join together in a bipartisan Kumbaya
moment that we've been missing and need to have again, and I ask you to
support it.
Mr. WAXMAN. In light of that argument, I'd be pleased to yield to the
gentleman from Kentucky if he's now been convinced of the rebuttal. If
not, I will yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Keating
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, beginning on line 13, strike paragraph (1) and
insert the following paragraph (and redesignate the
subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards
and requirements under such regulation in accordance with
section 112(i)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7412(i)(3));
(2) may, if the Administrator determines there is a
compelling reason to extend the date for such compliance,
provide an extension, in addition to any extension under
section 112(i)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(B)),
extending the date for such compliance up to one year, but in
no case beyond the date that is 5 years after the effective
date of such regulation; and
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, this bill gives the impression that we're
going to deal with this issue in 5 years. If you look at the bill
carefully, you will find out, Mr. Chair, that indeed what it could
postpone is the effect of this amendment forever. In fact, in terms of
pollution, in terms of toxins, this is the equivalent of the
``pollution road to nowhere'' where there's no ending in sight, none
that will ever be reached, and it's just nothing but a guise for the
people to think they're doing something within the 5-year timeframe.
Now, my amendment would allow the 5 years, but it would be a maximum
of
[[Page H6615]]
5 years before the source has to be implemented and the appropriate
changes are met in terms of emissions.
Now, what else would this amendment do? This amendment would save
10,000 related deaths, avert 6,000 heart attacks, avoid nearly 70,000
asthma attacks, and the pollution reductions required in this rule
would cut mercury emissions from cement kilns by over 90 percent.
As all of us know, Mr. Chairman, mercury is a poisonous substance
that affects the ability of infants and children to learn and to think.
It also results in birth defects and cognitive disabilities. Cement
kilns emit lead and arsenic which cause cancer and damage the nervous
system.
Now let's line up the costs and benefits. The costs--birth defects,
cognitive disabilities, cancer, heart attacks, asthma, and attacks on
the nervous system--are on one side of the ledger. On the other side of
the ledger are marginal savings by the companies for not doing what
they really should be doing in terms of keeping people safe.
Now let's add up the cost of that versus the cost of all those
ailments, all those things that affect young people and that will
affect taxpayers funding this for decades to come, a multiple of
whatever savings is there for the industries that are in question.
So I hope this amendment passes. I think what this attempts to do is
say let's cut through the guile. If you mean 5 years, you mean 5 years.
And so we should be in agreement on this if that is indeed the case.
And I hope this amendment gets the support from my colleagues that
believe 5 years is a reasonable time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1910
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The amendment offered by the gentleman would set a 3-
year compliance date and allow case-by-case extensions for up to 2
years if the administrator of EPA determines that there is a compelling
need to do so.
The purpose, of course, of this legislation is to protect health,
provide feasibility and regulatory certainty, protect jobs, and
minimize plant shutdowns. Under the Clean Air Act, sources already have
3 years to comply with section 112 standards for cement kilns, with a
potential 1-year extension by the EPA administrator or a State-
permitting authority. This amendment would allow for a second possible
1-year extension, so a source might be able to get 5 years for
compliance. The amendment would impose additional regulatory burdens on
both the EPA and those facilities trying to comply. It would require a
facility to compile evidence to justify the need for an additional
year, and would require the administrator to make a case-by-case
determination about whether that justification is compelling.
All of the testimony in the hearings on this indicated that the
current 3-year compliance timeframe is simply not workable and a
definitive period of at least 5 years is needed. And so for that
reason, with all due respect, we would urge the defeat of the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the pending amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to yield to the author of the amendment, the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just say this: When you talk about certainty, the only thing
that is certain about this bill is there's no end to it. So if you call
certainty meaning there's no timeframe that can ever be reached for
certain, then I don't understand the paradox.
And when you're talking about the cost to the EPA and the marginal
cost that might be there to the industry in terms of savings, that
pales in comparison--by multiples--to the cost that taxpayers are going
to have to pay for the cognitive disabilities, the birth defects of
infants and young children that will be borne, in most cases, by the
taxpayer because we're not making these industries do what they're
supposed to do.
Mr. WAXMAN. I want to reclaim my time because the gentleman is
absolutely correct. There is no end point to when there would be
compliance so that we can get the health benefits because of that
compliance.
But let's go through the bill again. The bill would nullify EPA's
emission standards for cement kilns. It ensures that if EPA is able to
issue a new standard, the new standard would be less protective of
public health and more protective of the cement manufacturers' profits.
And even then, the bill allows for implementation of any new standard
to be indefinitely delayed. It blocks EPA from requiring cement kilns
to comply with the new rules for at least 5 years, and fails to
establish any deadline for compliance whatsoever. This could allow
cement kilns to continue to pollute without limit indefinitely.
I support this amendment because it would use this existing framework
of the bill as a baseline for compliance, but it would also allow the
administrator to provide additional extensions of 1 year for existing
sources if she determines there is a compelling reason. No polluter can
have more than 5 years to comply. Already under the Clean Air Act,
every facility has complied no later than 3 years after the limits go
into effect.
Over the past 20 years, tens of thousands of sources across about 100
industries have cleaned up their toxic air pollution within that 3-year
period. I think the statutory timeframe is sufficient. Five years is a
long time to wait for the communities living in the shadow of these
cement kilns. At least this amendment sets an outer bound for when
cement kilns will have to comply, unlike the underlying legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Edwards
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that if the rules specified in section
3(b) remain in effect, they will yield annual public health
benefits of $6,700,000,000 to $18,000,000,000, while the
costs of such rules are $926,000,000 to $950,000,000.
Page 5, line 11, strike ``section 2'' and insert ``section
3''.
Page 6, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)(1)'' and insert
``section 3(a)(1)''.
Page 7, line 8, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert
``section 3(a)''.
Page 7, lines 9 and 10, strike ``section 2(b)(2)'' and
insert ``section 3(b)(2)''.
Page 8, line 3, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert
``section 3(a)''.
Page 8, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert
``section 3(a)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for us to take a
step back and review our history.
The Clean Air Act has a proven 40-year track record of delivering
technological innovation and economic growth for the American people
while at the same time protecting public health and our Nation's
environment. This bipartisan act was originally signed into law by
President Richard Nixon, and the 1990 amendments were enacted by
President George H.W. Bush. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues
here today don't see eye to eye even with their own party's former
Presidents.
Since its inception, the Clean Air Act has netted Americans $40 in
benefits for every $1 that's been spent, making it one of the most
successful and significant statutes in our Nation's history. My
amendment highlights the
[[Page H6616]]
fact that if the rules repealed by this bill remained in effect, they
would yield annual public health benefits of between $6.7 billion and
$18 billion, at a cost of under $1 billion.
The benefit of complying with the EPA's cement kiln standards exceeds
the cost by a factor of at least 7 and as much as 18. And let's say
this in really plain language: That is between a 700 percent to an
1,800 percent return on an investment. It sounds like a good
investment. And these returns come from avoiding the health care and
social costs associated with 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 heart
attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 32,000 cases of respiratory
illnesses each year, the cost of 1,000 emergency room visits, 740
hospital admissions, multiple trips to the doctor and taking
prescription drugs, and the cost of 130,000 days of missed work a year,
costs felt by employers in the form of lost productivity and the
employee in the form of lost wages. One person working 7 days a week
would have to work 356 years to reach 130,000 days.
This very extreme analogy makes a simple point. If we put it in
perspective, the cement industry employs 13,000 workers. And if those
workers took the 130,000 sick days, it would shut down the entire
cement industry for 10 days every year.
A study published in the May 2011 Health Affairs found that we spend
$76 billion a year treating environmental diseases in children like
lead poisoning, prenatal methylmercury exposure, childhood cancer,
asthma, intellectual disability, autism, and ADHD. Now, cement factory
emissions may not be responsible for every one of these instances, but
cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury
pollution in the United States--after power plants. It's extraordinary.
Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that when ingested, particularly by
pregnant women, in the form of fish, can impair cognitive function in
infants and children. In 2000, the National Research Council warned
that 60,000 children could be born annually with neurological problems
from exposure to mercury while in the womb.
It's a simple fact: At a time when our Nation is struggling with
budget deficits, we should be targeting the causes of disease and
acting to reduce the need for health care spending. And yet producers
of toxic emissions need to step up and assume their fair share of
responsibility.
Now, those who want to gut the EPA cement kiln standards say that
complying with these rules would force them to jack up the price of
cement and drive consumers--mostly construction companies--to buy cheap
imports from China instead. It's not true, and it's just a scare
tactic. Instead, look at the facts. The EPA estimates that cement
makers would recoup nearly 90 percent of their pollution control
costs--which are anyway amortized over years of operation--by adding
just $4.50 to the price of a ton of cement. This is not a prohibitive
hike. And more importantly, cement is expensive to ship, and so the
likelihood of shipping it from China seems highly skeptical. The truth
is that the cement sector is vulnerable because the construction
industry has taken a big hit in the recession and hasn't recovered. And
here we're in a Congress trying to gut EPA standards when we actually
should be creating jobs.
And if you want to talk about job killers, this bill is a job killer
because we should be investing in the industry, allowing it to produce
cement for roads, bridges, all of our infrastructure instead of gutting
EPA standards. There's no way to do this except by investing in
infrastructure.
And so I would urge us to look at the real cost of lowering these
standards, the real cost to industry, and urge us instead to think
about the Clean Air Act and the benefits to communities, and make sure
that we pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1920
Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The last time that the Clean Air Act was amended in
any significant way was 1990, over 21 years ago. And Congress certainly
has the responsibility, from time to time, to look at the Clean Air Act
to make changes when we believe changes should be made. And with the
current situation in our economy, and the high unemployment and the
number of concerns expressed by industries around the country, as well
as individuals about the lack of jobs, we made a decision that we would
start questioning some of the regulations coming out of the EPA.
The gentlelady from Maryland, who is a very effective Member of this
body, is suggesting that, in our legislation, that we adopt as a
finding the health benefits and costs as computed by EPA.
Now, we have difficulty just adopting their health benefits and costs
and putting it in our legislation as a finding for a number of reasons.
Number one, we don't really know the assumptions that they're using.
Number two, many universities and others have questioned the models
being used by EPA in computing costs and benefits. And many people have
found that there is a lack of transparency in the methodology used at
EPA in making many of these calculations.
I might also say that, because of that, for example, EPA determined
that the cost of these rules would be between $926 million to $950
million; and yet other independent analyses have indicated that the
cost would be anywhere up to $3.4 billion. So we genuinely believe that
for Congress to simply take those calculations and put them in as a
finding of this legislation would be irresponsible.
I might also add that, with respect to the benefits, EPA itself has
acknowledged that it has not even quantified the benefits from the
reductions of hazardous air pollutants, which are the very pollutants
that these rules, these cement rules, were intended to target. Rather,
EPA's estimates of benefits are all related to incidental health
benefits by the reduction of particulate matter, which are already
regulated by other parts of the Clean Air Act.
So for all of those reasons, I would respectfully urge Members to
oppose the gentlelady's amendment and request that they vote in
opposition to it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. For decades, regulated industry has claimed that EPA
rules are not worth the cost. For decades, they've pushed laws and
executive orders to require more and more detailed cost-benefit
analyses. So now, that's what EPA does for every major rule. EPA
conducts a regulatory impact analysis that quantifies and monetizes, to
the extent possible, the costs and benefit of each rule.
These analyses are based on peer-reviewed science. They're reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget. The analyses are usually a
couple hundred pages long. EPA prepares a draft analysis for the
proposed rule, which is available for public comment before it is
finalized with the final rule.
The information about the costs and benefits of the rules helps EPA
make a sensible decision about how stringent the standards should be.
For example, as a consequence, EPA almost never adopts rules where
monetized costs outweigh the benefits.
Last year, EPA finalized long overdue standards to cut emissions of
mercury and other toxic air pollutants from cement kilns. As it does
for every rule, EPA conducted a thorough regulatory impact analysis of
cement kiln rules following the process I just described. This analysis
found that the benefits of these rules for public health far outweigh
the costs to the polluters. That means that, as a Nation, we're far
better off with these rules than without them.
But now the Republicans aren't interested in the cost-benefit
analysis. They're only interested in the costs, regardless of how much
those costs are outweighed by the benefits.
Here's why these rules are such a good deal for the American public:
the rules will significantly reduce emissions of fine particle
pollution which can lodge deep in the lungs and cause
[[Page H6617]]
serious health problems. By cutting emissions of fine particles, EPA
estimates that these rules will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths,
1,500 non-fatal heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggregated asthma, and
130,000 days when people miss work or school each year.
EPA estimates that the cost to comply with the rules will be about
$950 million in 2013. In contrast, EPA estimates that the monetized
health benefits associated with reduced exposure to air pollution range
from $6.7 billion to $18 billion in 2013 and annually thereafter.
Moreover, these figures likely underestimate the health benefits of
the rule because, given time and data limitations, EPA wasn't able to
put a dollar value on the health benefits of reducing cement kiln
emissions of carcinogens and other toxic substances such as mercury,
which is a powerful neurotoxin.
Well, this amendment simply restates the conclusions of EPA's cost-
benefit analysis. This amendment does not change what the bill does. If
this amendment passes, the bill would still nullify the cement kiln
rules and force EPA to start all over again. The bill would still
rewrite the Clean Air Act in such a way that EPA may never be able to
reissue emission limits for toxic air pollution from cement kilns.
But this amendment provides an important reminder. By nullifying the
rules, the bill also nullifies the $6.7 billion to $18 billion in
annual health benefits that would have made Americans better off if the
rules remain in place. This amendment ensures that we have a clearly
stated accounting of the monetized costs and benefits of this bill.
The Republicans have been eager to talk about the benefit to industry
of shielding them from having to cut their toxic and mercury emissions.
This amendment simply outlines the costs to public health of nullifying
these rules.
When it came to Congressman Ellison's amendment, where he wanted the
benefits clearly stated, the Republicans opposed it because they said
that EPA had already studied it, so why should we have to put it in the
finding. When it comes to this amendment they say, well, maybe they
haven't studied it well enough; and they didn't want to put it in the
findings for that reason. I find both arguments not only inconsistent,
but not very persuasive.
So I'd urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland
will be postponed.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross of Florida,
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 2681) to provide additional time for the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for
cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________